New fingerprint powers?
Posted on Wednesday, March 14th, 2007 by Home Office WatchCategory: Biometrics
The government could be seeking new powers for the police to fingerprint people who break parking rules or drop litter.
A consultation paper is today published on a review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which sets the boundaries for most police powers, though it’s been subject to a lot of amendments and revisions since then. Currently fingerprints can be taken compulsarily only from those suspected of recordable offences. The document states (see p11):
The absence of the ability to take fingerprints etc in relation to all offences may be considered to undermine the value and purpose of having the ability to confirm or disprove identification and, importantly, to make checks on a searchable database aimed at detecting existing and future offending and protecting the public.
We all want to cut crime, but these days almost all offences are recordable, and only the most minor still count as non-recordable - mostly littering, parking and the like. Do the police need to check litterers against a national database? If the inability to take fingerprints for specific offences is causing problems, those offences could be made “recordable” so that prints can be demanded.
The onus must be on police and the government to show these powers are necessary. Too often the debate is set so that those opposed to extension of powers have to prove why they aren’t needed. Let us hope that doesn’t happen here.
Comment : Trackback :Related posts:
March 15th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I was wondering if anyone else was concerned about the ‘creeping’ police state. What other ludicrous and lame ‘crimes’ can the police dream up just so they can gradually build up their DNA database by stealth until all of us have a Damoclean sword hanging over our heads? You may laugh now, but I can imagine a time when DNA is demanded for something as minor as having a headlight out on your car! I am particularly concerned about young people having their DNA on such a database when they haven’t even committed a crime! It’s just a means to control people’s behaviour as far as I can see. Is there anyway that the so called free people of the UK can resist these measures? Is there nothing in the Human Rights Act that may allow us to resist this?
March 15th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Three points-
1. The argument for the retention of fingerprints is their use in investigation of other offences, but I wonder how many people who commit non-recordable offences (picking wild flowers is one IIRC) go on the commit more serious offences, because from a utilitarian p.o.v. that number needs be high compared to the costs (financial and other) of taking and retaining all these extra f/p to possibly justifiy this. Sometimes the medicine become the illness.
2. Party policy is against the retention of DNA from people who are arrested but not convicted of any crime. Can anyone tell me what our position is on the retention of f/p from people in that position because logically they ought to be the same?
3. I note how the document says “a searchable database AIMED AT detecting [more crime]” rather than simply sayinjg “a searchable database that detects [more crime]” which implies they specifically imagine that this might aim for something, without achieving it. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I tried to look at the consultation paper just now by clicking on the link but it asks for a username and password, do you know what I’m supposed to put in?
March 20th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I’ve fixed the link. Thanks