normal persons capable of assuming obligations and holding rights. Personal
identity in the judicial sense is a highly abstract notion, a normative principle
from which reality often deviates. Every one of us is a token of the ideal type
‘normal person’, and none of these tokens is perfect. Each and every one is
flawed in one way or another. For the purposes of the law, the difficult task is to
define, or decide on a case-by-case basis, what level of flawedness is compatible
with the capacity to access the civil and juridical system and, in particular, the
ability to sue and be sued. All legal acts presuppose the capacity and the
distinctive personal identity of those involved. At times, both are hard to
establish.
Forensic identification
In 2013, scientists of the University of Leicester identified Richard III, ‘beyond
reasonable doubt’. Richard was not on a most wanted list; he died in battle more
than 500 years ago. Yet the scientific analysis of his remains was a feat of
forensic identification. The evidence presented in the case includes data of
various kind, notably DNA and radiological analysis, radiocarbon dating, and
anatomical information. This opens up new perspectives for historical research
and is of great interest to several fields of law.
Concealing or altering the agent’s identity or that of the victim is part of many
crime schemes. Forensic identification science is the discipline that develops the
methods and theories to unravel the ensuing mysteries. It makes use of all
available techniques relating to identity on national, social, ethnic,
psychological, linguistic, and genetic levels. Typically, forensic expert testimony
presented in court leans on the principle of the identity of indiscernibles
(Leibniz’s Law, introduced in Chapter 2), for lawyers appreciate clearness. The
assumption is that two indistinguishable items—for example, blood or saliva
samples—can only have been produced by the same agent.
Conventional forensic identification techniques include methods of analysing
blood, semen, fingerprints, palm prints, hair, bite marks, handwriting, as well as
facial recognition and voice recognition. But these techniques may not
definitively resolve a good whodunit. None of them is foolproof, as indicated by
numerous cases of convicts who were exonerated by new means of forensic
identification not available at the time of their trial. Even fingerprints, for a long
time the epitome of unmistakable identity proof, have on occasion led to