Crime has developed as a result of scientific and technological progress. Because of this development, it can be impossible to identify the perpetrators by traditional means of proof. Traditional means of proof lack the necessary means to identify the offender as a result of them using modern methods to commit their crimes.
Criminal justice systems have relied upon modern criminal investigation techniques such as ear prints in identifying perpetrators. However, the use of such techniques as criminal evidence raises problems as to the accuracy of the identity of the individual and may prejudice human rights guaranteed by the constitution.
In this study, we attempted to identify the role of ear prints as evidence and their evidential weight before the criminal courts, and the reliability of them as evidence before the criminal judge in various crimes.
The study revealed that there is no law regulating the use of ear prints as criminal evidence. There is also a lack of agreement among specialists on the accuracy of their results, which did not reach 100%. This works in favor of the accused, based on the principle that he is innocent until proven guilty. This also shows that ear prints alone cannot be used to prove guilt, because they do not provide certain and clear proof; any conviction must be based on certainty. They need to be supported by other means of proof. However, ear prints are suitable for acquittal or recognition of victims of crime or unknown persons in the event of disasters or newborns, etc.
Ear prints are not suitable as criminal evidence in crimes with prescribed Islamic sharia punishments, because they contravene the rules of proving guilt prescribed in Islamic law.