Police Stop Fingerprint..

[Mr Jack]

Prove you aren't a criminal to the police? "That's against my HUMAN RIGHTS!!!!!"232413241"

Why in the name of all that is good and holy should I have to prove I'm not a criminal? That's got the whole thing backwards. It is up to the Police to demonstrate I am a criminal not the other way round.

You know, Innocent until proven Guilty and all that?

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Why in the name of all that is good and holy should I have to prove I'm not a criminal? That's got the whole thing backwards. It is up to the Police to demonstrate I am a criminal not the other way round.

You know, Innocent until proven Guilty and all that?

Er.. scanning your fingerprint to see if you are wanted, and if you are, is proving you are a criminal.. by that logic, DNA testing would be wrong, too. As would ID Parades.

 

[robmiller]

^^ Couldn't have out it better.

Prove you aren't a criminal to the police? "That's against my HUMAN RIGHTS!!!!!"232413241"

Of course it is, and with good reason! Why would you want to throw away one of your most important and fundamental rights?

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
   • to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
   • to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
   • to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
   • to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
   • to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

 

[Mr Jack]

Er.. scanning your fingerprint to see if you are wanted, and if you are, is proving you are a criminal.. by that logic, DNA testing would be wrong, too. As would ID Parades.

That's not what SB said though, is it?

 

[bitslice]

The downside to this, is that it provides an incentive for Police to fingerprint people for petty offences (as I believe has been taking place in Scotland for a long time)

It could also be considered as gathering evidence from suspects without cause.
Say the police have fingerprints on file for a crime, they think joebloggs did it, so they go and pull him for "wearing a cap in a racist manner", get his prints and so finger him for the crime.

"All for the greater good" you may say, but it is the same as kicking down your door without a warrent. Your privacy is still being compromised.

This is no substitute for a future ID card, and I bet they will continue to use it long after the ID card is intoduced.

.

 

[Geoff]

Er.. scanning your fingerprint to see if you are wanted, and if you are, is proving you are a criminal.. by that logic, DNA testing would be wrong, too. As would ID Parades.

Well, the fact that you're wanted doesn't prove you're a criminal. Only a conviction in a court will do that.

But this thing about who has to prove criminality is a red herring anyway, since it isn't the issue. The issue is about establishing identity.

At the moment, there are circumstances under which the police can require a citizen to establish his/her identity, and this fingerprinting thing doesn't change that, or the circumstances. At the moment, if you are required to establish your identity, and either won't do so or can't do so to the satisfaction of a police officer, they can and often will arrest you until such time as you can satisfy them. All this fingerprinting thing does, in procedural terms, is establish quickly and easily what you aren't, that being someone on the existing 6 million-ish database of known naughty people. In and of itself, even that doesn't establish your identity, but it might be enough to convince an officer that your claimed identity is much more likely to be true.

In other words, other than any possible inferences for illicit retention of scans, all this fingerprinting will do is perhaps prevent ordinary people from being detained while their claimed identity is checked, and perhaps result in those giving fake identities getting nicked for doing so. In either case, it's a good thing PROVIDED the scans of the innocent are, as the police have claimed, nort retained and providing this isn't just the thin end of the wesge of introducing yet-more intrusive and invasive police powers .... like compulsory ID cards, and a requirenment to produce on demand.

But these things (civil liberties) have a habit of being eroded by being chipped away bit at a time, and once lost, they're VERY hard indeed to get back.

 

[Fr0dders]

Of course it is, and with good reason! Why would you want to throw away one of your most important and fundamental rights?

why does everybody rant on about this

just because you're asked to give a fingerprint, or DNA sample, doesnt change the fact you're "innocent untill proven guilty".

If your asked to provide DNA / fingerprint ID, they're not asking you to do something you dont already do. By law, you have to produce your driving license and proof of insurance and MOT at a police station within 14 days.

Nobody complains about this. But yet its exactly the same, your being required to proove you've not commited a crime (driving without a license, insurance or an unroadworthy vehicle) but nobody jump's on their high horse about having to do this. Nobody says "its up to the police to proove my vehicle isnt road worthy" we accept we have to provide an MOT document to the police to proove it and thats that.

the whole argument against this is that the police should proove you're guilty, and not the other way round. But this logic applies to having to produce documents at the police station. but nobody complains about that ?

as soon as the police move with the times, and change the requirements to something more modern than bits of paper. The daily mail lot are up in arms about it. Would it not be easier for honest citizens just to provide a fingerprint, at the roadside, rather than having to make a special trip to the police station to provide your documents.