[zdragnar]

Human eyewitness testimony is also imperfect. How often do you see someone or hear a voice that you think you recognize only to find out it was someone else?

What you are arguing is that voice and face recognition are to be accepted as absolute fact, which is not how they ought to be treated. They shouldn't be considered any more reliable than a human, and any use otherwise should be discouraged. Don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

[shmageggy]

Human eyewitness relates to an event. "Did you see this person on the night of January 14" etc. Phrenology is based on immutable characteristics of a person's physiology. Predicting criminality based on any immutable feature seems categorically wrong to me. If facial and voice recognition are used in relation to specific events, that's one thing, but using them to predict some sort of innate propensity for doing crime sounds like pure bathwater.