Surely this should be of ordinary peoples as well, maybe the crime rate will go down then, and people who committed offences for the first time can then be caught more easily.
2006-11-25 22:29:13 · 20 answers · asked by lonely as a cloud 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Civil rights- we are innocent until proved guilty, and having everyone on a database would be taking the opposite stance- like, 'you are a criminal waiting to step out of line'- terrible! It could even have a reverse effect- like, 'they reckon I'm a criminal already, so why not do crime?' We still have the right to privacy to an extent, and having all our details on a database, microchipping us when we haven't done anything wrong, that be a huge violation of personal rights.
Still, the biometric ID card will be similar to the system you are suggesting. We'll see if the crime rate goes down... Even if you have everyone on a database, who will monitor the people who monitor the database?
2006-11-25 22:44:43 · answer #1 · answered by Buzzard 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As you can see, people get very funny about the idea of their privacy, freedom, civil liberties etc being compromised. It's the IDEA of having to give their fingerprints that people find very offensive. Like it means we are on a slippery slope to 1984, or that the govt suspects them of being a potential criminal (despite the fact they'd be doing it to everyone, so where's the discrimination in that?!)
It's all about the way it makes them feel. But I just don't see the practical implications for all of us non-criminals in our everyday lives. I'd be happy to give the police my fingerprints and even DNA if it meant that potential rapists and murderers had to do the same thing. What could ever come of it, apart from the fact that I might be caught if I committed a crime (which I'm not going to). And the benefit is, if I were ever suspected of a crime, they could run a fingerprint match w/o even bothering me and making me go down to the station to give them (that's much more insulting than if we all were called up to give them, surely?)
You can bet if these people are ever victims of crime they will be wanting the help of the police, and will be the first to complain if they aren't able to help them.
As for the slippery slope argument, I agree that there needs to be a balance between protecting freedom and liberty and stopping crime, that is absolutely true and it's something we all need to pay attention to. But fingerprint databases come close to crossing the line for me. Think of all the databases we are already on- when we get a drivers license (they have our photos!), a passport (they know which country we are in all the time!) but no one complains because we want to have a car, and we want to be able to travel. It's not like we are all living in anonymity anyway.
2006-11-27 01:02:40 · answer #2 · answered by - 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Excuse me. I am a law abiding citizen and the police have no right to bother me. Unless I break a law. You really want to have to report to the police station and be fingerprinted and give a blood sample even though you are not a criminal just on the off chance you might go crazy some day and rob a bank?
Last I heard, the forth amendment was still in force and this was still a free country. Petty little dictatorships require this,not democracies.
And lastly, why fingerprint millions of people who will never get closer to the justice system than watching Law & Order? Do you know how expensive that would be?
2006-11-26 00:12:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you want to be treated like a criminal? i'm sorry but i'm a law abiding citizen, and the government has no god damn right to have my fingerprints or any other personal information on a database. This country is turning into a policestate just like america where people will be required to prove who they are and be answerable to the government at all times, that is NOT freedom..
Eventually the government want to put microchips into people, and they will hold every bit of information possible about you, and you will be checked and monitored constantly by the government, that is NOT freedom,
The microchip is called the VeriChip and is already being implanted in some people in the US, many governments of the world now are planning to impliment an ID card and database, which will hold massive amounts of data on all citzens and track people with the RFID chip, which stands for "radio-frequency identification." the ID card system is the precurser to having the entire population microchipped, that is NOT freedom.
2006-11-25 22:58:22 · answer #4 · answered by jesus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually the "police" database of fingerprint is not just criminals, The FBI data base which is the one used for comparison, includes everyone that applies for government jobs requiring fingerprint, people like teachers and day care workers who have to be fingerprinted and so on.
2006-11-26 04:33:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a databse of innocent people and criminals. When they finger print or dna screen a person it is because that person is a suspect, not a criminal. If they get charged with the offence then they are a criminal if not they are innocent. Either way the records are kept.
Also criminals are not convicted on the evidence of fingerprints/ dna alone. There has to other sound evidence to hand to prove or demonstrate the liklihood of a criminal activity taking place.
2006-11-25 22:44:12 · answer #6 · answered by bumbleboi 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The database is full of the fingerprints of people other than criminals. Law enforcement officers are in the database as well as the majority of medical professionals. If you've ever been fingerprinted, like when they do the missing kid kits, you're in the system somewhere.
2006-11-25 22:35:17 · answer #7 · answered by mreheather6 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
well this would seem a great idea but the database is only of people who the police have taken fingerprints from, I dont think there is the resource to turn up at everyones house and take fingerprints, not to mention the threats of a nanny state.
Also good to remember its not just criminals but everyone whos fingerprints are taken with consent - ie totally innocent suspects or victims
2006-11-25 22:33:00 · answer #8 · answered by Nettle 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I've been fingerprinted so many times. Almost every school district I've ever worked for has asked me to be fingerprinted at least one, and several of my summer jobs have put me through extensive criminal background checks, including fingerprinting. I'm not a criminal. I've just done a lot of work with kids and confidential information.
2006-11-25 22:41:40 · answer #9 · answered by Gabby_Gabby_Purrsalot 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bit more complicated than that. Here in the UK they are trying to do just that. It could be a way of segregrating different ethic/health groups in years to come. Think about it..... health insurance for example, if your genetic makeup is processed and there is a genetic probability that you may be more likely to get say a certain type of cancer who,s going to provide you with cover. Sometimes giving Goverments too much power over indivuals can erode your freedom, maybe not now but twenty, thirty years time.... who knows. Hitler had a similar idea do you want that again?
2006-11-25 22:45:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋