A Brief Discussion on Issues Encountered in the Utilization of Shoeprints

We know that by analyzing shoeprints found at crime scenes, we can infer and judge the perpetrator's gender, age, height, physique, etc., and can directly identify individuals, thus holding individual identification value. Shoeprints at the scene are formed when the shoes worn by criminals come into contact with surfaces under external force. Therefore, analyzing shoeprints also requires indirectly reflecting the individual's characteristics through their shoes.

Although shoeprint identification, like DNA identification, fingerprint identification, and handwriting identification, can directly provide affirming or denying conclusions about case facts and can directly uncover key facts of the case for use as direct evidence, its evidentiary valueis indirect compared to the aforementioned types of evidence. It still requires other evidence to prove its own evidentiary value. This unique characteristic of shoeprints means that the process of utilizing them differs from the use of other types of evidence. In practice, issues such as the evidentiary validity of shoeprints and differing interpretations of crime scene shoeprints may arise. These issues can further affect the perceived evidentiary status of shoeprints in the minds of investigators.

If these issues are not adequately addressed, they can hinder the resolution of cases, allowing criminals to evade punishment and impacting the fairness of the law.

‍

1. Problems Encountered in the Utilization of Crime Scene Shoeprints

1.1 Low Utilization Rate of Crime Scene Shoeprints

‍Generally, where there is a crime scene, there will be shoeprints. Even though criminals sometimes destroy the central crime scene, careful investigation of the surrounding are a usually reveals their shoeprints. Thus, the probability of extracting shoeprint evidence from a crime scene is quite high. However, compared to the extraction rate, the utilization rate of shoeprints is relatively low. The reasons for this include the following:

1.1.1 Objective Reasons

Due to poor conditions at the scene, shoeprints may be incomplete, deformed, or damaged due to adverse weather conditions or other factors. This limits investigators to forming only a preliminary understanding of the sole patterns and shoe types from the shoeprints, which can only serve as reference points and lack identification value.

1.1.2 Limitations of Shoeprint Identification Technology

Shoeprint identification is often limited to comparing the visual characteristics between the shoe and the shoeprint. These characteristics can change, degrade, or disappear as the shoe continues to wear down. This requires the shoeprint to be matched with the corresponding shoe in the shortest possible time. As time passes, even if the criminal's shoe is found, the altered features may prevent comparison with the crime scene shoeprints.

1.2 Non-adoption of Shoeprint Identification Conclusions

When case materials contain only shoeprint identification conclusions and no other evidence, suspects are often not arrested or prosecuted due to insufficient evidence. Prosecutors tend to view the relationship between the crime scene shoeprints and the scene itself with skepticism, doubting the accuracy of the shoeprints obtained from the scene and suspecting that the identified shoeprints may not belong to the suspect. This cautious attitude aims to protect citizens' legal rights and reflects a serious and responsible approach to their work.

1.3 Insufficient Attention to Shoeprints by Investigators

Due to the unique nature of shoeprints as evidence, investigators tend to focus more on fingerprints and biological evidence rather than shoeprint evidence during case handling. The use of shoeprints by investigators is typically limited to analyzing the number of perpetrators, their gender, and other characteristics through shoeprint analysis, while overlooking the value of individual identification. When other evidence isavailable, investigators prefer to use it to verify the correctness of the shoeprints, placing shoeprints in a secondary, reference position. The reasons for this insufficient attention to shoeprintsare as follows:

1.3.1 Objective Reasons

Most crime scene shoeprints are incomplete or lack clear distinguishing features, making them unsuitable for individual identification. Over time, this leads investigators to devalue the identification potential of shoeprints, focusing more on using shoeprint analysis for situational assessment and determining the number of perpetrators.

1.3.2 The Unique Nature of Shoeprints as Evidence

During the investigative and litigation stages, different entities may have varying understandings of shoeprints, unlike the consens us usually reached with fingerprints and DNA analysis. To avoid unnecessary complications, investigators often prioritize fingerprints and DNA evidence.

2. Approaches to Solving These Problems

2.1 Improving the Skills of Grassroots Criminal Technicians

‍ Although grassroots criminal technology departments have engaged in examining the visual characteristics of shoeprints, these efforts are oftenbasic. There remains much to be explored in the field of shoeprint forensics. It is necessary to enhance the training of technical personnel by having them attend workshops and inviting experts to conduct lectures to improve their skills in shoeprint analysis and identification.

2.2 Strengthening Communication Between Investigators and Prosecutors

‍Investigators should emphasize the basis for using crime scene shoeprints as evidence and provide reasonable explanations to address the doubts of prosecutors, thereby increasing their confidence in shoeprint evidence. This will help promote the recognition of shoeprint evidence within the judicialfield.

In short, the problems encountered in utilizing shoeprints stem from their inherent characteristics. We should not dismiss their value because of these issues. Instead, we should remain confident and continually refine and summarize our methods to eliminate the gaps that cause these problems, thereby enabling shoeprints to play a more effective role within the evidence system.

‍