No two fingerprints are alike; therefore, fingerprinting has become the universal method of classification. We all leave fingerprints, left by oil secreted by the glands on our fingers. Fingerprints have been used as far back as the 3rd century B.C. in China, when fingerprints were used as seals for important documents. However, the significance of fingerprints wasn't established until thousands of years later in the 19th century A.D. Fingerprinting escalated as the new science of identification. 

     The science of fingerprinting grew out of the need to physically classify people. They had tried many different methods but all seemed to fail, such as Alphonse Bertillion with his method of classifying people according to body measurement. Unfortunately, this system failed when they realized that two people could have the same exact body measurements. 
Around this time, a British administrative officer in Hooghly (an Indian district capital) named William Herschel was requiring that official documents be signed with an inked imprint of the fingers and palm. Over a period of time he noticed that no two fingerprints were alike. The first systematic analysis of fingerprints was done by Henry Faulds, later on came Fransis Galton, who wrote the first known book on fingerprints.
Bertillon is the man credited with the first criminal identification of a fingerprint without a known suspect. This landmark in the science occurred in 1902, with the latent print from the crime scene of a homicide compared against existing criminal fingerprint files. This success prompted the gradual acceptance of fingerprinting by the courts and police departments. In 1903, the New York Police Department took up the challenge of the new science, as well as the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

     Fingerprints are formed at birth and are nearly impossible to change. They fall into three basic patterns: the loop, arch and whorl. The basic patterns are further broken down into groups by characteristics such as the number of ridges between two points, ridge branches, and islands. With the use of technology, police and detectives can use a computer terminal hooked up to the police database and search for a match with all of the criminals on file.
Fingerprints can be exposed from evidence at the scene of a crime in numerous ways. The most common method is dusting with black or white powder. The powder sticks to the skin oils left on the surface by the fingers, making them visible. Other methods include Iodine Fuming, Cyronoacrylate (Superglue Fuming), Ninhydrin, Silver Nitrate, and Laser.

     Many people, at first, were cautious of this new method of identification; such as the case in New York City 1911, when Caesar Cella was accused of a robbery. Unfortunately, there were no eyewitnesses and he was about to be let free. However, the prosecutor, highly confident that Cella had committed the crime, had something up his sleeve. He called Detective Sergeant Joseph A. Faurot to the Stand. The detective had found several marks of dirty fingers on the window frame. According to the Detective the finger markings matched those of Cella. The defense was suspicious, wondering how a bunch of little marks could be significant in the case. The Judge had to make a choice as to whether or not this new evidence would be accepted into court. So, the judge devised a method to test the validity of the fingerprints. He asked the detective to leave the room, then had 15 people make a mark on a piece of glass. One of the 15 people also had to leave a mark on the judge's desk. The detective was then asked to identify the fingerprint on the desk. He went to work with his magnifying glass and within a few minutes he matched the print.

     Fingerprints were an incredible breakthrough in the early 19th century, without this method of classification many cases would have not been solved and many criminals punished for their crimes. As technology progresses, we are developing new methods of classification, like DNA sequencing. Fingerprinting as a method of classification would be very difficult to replace.