I don't think that for something small, like a traffic ticket, fingerprinting shouldn't have to be done. Besides, there are already ID cards or driver's licenses. That, or people should be fingerprinted when they enter the country or something.
Then again, if you have nothing to hide it shouldn't matter. Though once you commit a crime and you're fingerprinted, you're in the database, so you can be referred to if you commit another crime. Plus, ID cards and licenses can be forged/replicated.
What does everyone think?
2006-11-27 01:22:20 · 8 answers · asked by rewmmm 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
i think that anytime you do anything you should have both your fingerprint and DNA recorded, the bigger the database the larger chance of criminals being caught. even for little things like traffic tickets - at least that way there is a real database. The only people who can be caught are those whose DNA is already on record; or the police have to go and get the DNA. That would bring in the whole: Do they really need to take my DNA for a parking ticket but the general populace should have nothing to fear - unless they are planning to do something wrong. It would just make us safer and better able to put the right people behind bars.
2006-11-27 01:34:56 · answer #1 · answered by n12e34l56 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I say.....what does it matter. I work for a PD and usually the only time they fingerprint is if the prisoner is going to stay. If they give them a PTA (promise to appear) then they don't usually fingerprint unless they feel it is necessary
2006-11-27 10:04:33 · answer #2 · answered by Andrea 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think everyone's thumbprint should be printed on their ID so record keeping paranoia doesn't become an issue for this. If officers have a kit where they can check your thumbprint on the spot to check who you are, then there isn't a worry about file keeping in a police department.
2006-11-27 09:25:52 · answer #3 · answered by Mikey C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone should have a DNA sample cataloged at birth. Then, when they find DNA at a crime scene, or a decomposed body in the woods, the police would know who they were dealing with....
2006-11-27 09:32:24 · answer #4 · answered by truth be told 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
For felonies,,yes,fingerprints + DNA. For misdemeanors,,no,,;-)=
2006-11-27 09:30:43 · answer #5 · answered by Jcontrols 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in my opinion, fingerprinting is mandetory only for people who commit serious crimes but like you said not all matters must involve fingerprinting.
2006-11-27 09:28:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, photo and DNA
2006-11-27 09:36:09 · answer #7 · answered by Reported for insulting my belief 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sounds like you've already answered this...
2006-11-27 09:25:48 · answer #8 · answered by boots 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋