Technology can be a wonderful thing when it is used effectively and accurately. Technological enhancements have surely impacted the world, including in the area of security and identification. Facial recognition is clearly one of those improvements that many Georgia residents have used in protecting their families, homes, and other personal property. However, the concept that the camera never lies only applies to certain applications, and this especially applies when an individual’s freedom and future is hanging in the balance after being accused of a crime that they did not commit.
The impact of inaccuracy in facial recognition
All police agencies love to have facial recognition when attempting to investigate a crime. It is heralded as a great achievement and tool for law enforcement in supposedly protecting the public. However, the central problem with facial recognition is that so many people look very much alike, especially people of color. ACLU criminal defense lawyers in a northern state have found that Asian and African individuals are 100 times more likely to be arrested unlawfully based on facial recognition.
Building reasonable doubt against facial recognition ID
Reasonable doubt is still the standard when it comes to criminal defense, but judges and police officers are often to eager to issue warrants for certain individuals using the perceived infallible technology to identify a suspect. Merely looking like someone who has committed a crime can land another someone in a police lineup when the technology is used. Criminal defense attorneys see this happen far too often. However, video discrepancies in identification can be used very effectively in building a solid defense by declaring reasonable doubt in certain cases.
The real problem with use of facial recognition is that even an arrest can have a dramatic impact on the life of a suspect regardless of guilt. There is an arrest record generated by the system, and the media always want to jump quickly to a conclusion based solely on the arrest. The defendant is then left to fight the system in arriving at the truth of the case and not the false perception that facial recognition is always correct.