The claim is demonstrated that criminal identification is a creative process rather than one of discover; or, more precisely, criminal identification involves creating criminal identities under the guise of scientific discovery. When examining the criminal identification terrain as a creative governmental venture, analysts can legitimately ask basic questions. Accusing someone of a crime based on scientific evidence may seem perfectly ordinary today, but this is a relatively recent phenomenon. This article focuses on a late 19th century regulatory ethos in England that called for a ‘science’ of criminal identification. It examines specifically the influential contributions of Alphonse Bertillon techniques for measuring bodies and Francis Galton’s composite portraiture. The argument begins with a brief outline of the administrative problem to which their scientific criminal identification technologies responded. It then draws on selected science study debates to describe key differences in the techniques and visions of science respectively embraced by the two men. By emphasizing the significance of these differences the discussion discerns unique dangers associated with each approach. It is argued that current compulsions to identify individual criminal, or criminal types, have inordinately constrained attempts to consider other ways to govern harmful behaviors. This analysis urges that criminal identification be considered for what it is: a socio-political creation, not an impartial discovery. Figures, notes, and references