africa34 asked this question on 3/27/2000:

I'm writing a paper on controversial things in the area of phonetics. I was wondering how you all feel about the use of acoustic phonetics in criminal forensics -- the use of "voice prints" as evidence in a trial. Do you think this is a reliable source? Are there certain times when you feel it should not be used? Any other information would be greatly appreciated....I'm running out of time! Thank you so much.

tcsmpsi gave this response on 3/28/2000:

With our growing technology, voice print analysis is becoming rapidly a more viable expression of evidence. As with all forms of this type of evidence, it is expremely dependent on the integrity of the analysts. It is this which must be paid close scrutiny to. Once the analytical integrity is established beyond all reasonable doubt, then yes, it is a very reliable source of evidence. And as long as this integrity is consistent, then there is no reason why it should not be entered as evidence. Always though, no single piece of evidence is all conclusive. It all must be taken with the totality of the fact and circumstance.

The average rating for this answer is 5.

africa34 rated this answer a 5.