Driver's licence endorcements etc..

arybvtcw0eolkf · 23-01-2008 10:35am #1

Ok I think we can all agree that endorcements/points on your driver's licence are en effective mean's to help keep us all driving safely and within the laws, and currently the authorities are working on bring this accross the border into N.I. and the UK meaning points/penalties/bannings will apply in Ireland, N.I. and the UK.

So.........

Why not have the same system with passports or in the case of countries which require you to have a national I.D. card have your criminal convictions recorded on either your passport or natiaonal ID card?.

If it could be put in place I think it would be a pretty good deterent against committing crime and an effect vetting tool when entering another country.

I mean, who wants criminals entering their country?.. I certainly don't, and I don't see why our own homegrown criminal eliment should have free movement outside the state either.

seamus · 23-01-2008 10:49am

Or an international offender's database?

Some form of simple biometric identifying. That is, a simple algorithm is used to to generate unique ID for a person based on an unchangeable biometric. This unique ID is printed on the passport and the passport details stored in an international database. The UID is also used in an international offences database*

When a person attempts to enter the country, immigration takes this biometric reading and uses it to find the unique ID for that person. Then the passport is scanned, and the UID on the passport is checked against the one just generated. The passport details are also checked against what's stored in the database. This ensures that the passport is neither forged nor altered - you can't use someone else's passport because their UID is different.
Then the international offences database is checked.

Of course, there will never be an infallible system. Someone with enough money could get a valid "fake" passport from an official, or could have offences wiped or reassigned to someone else. People with this kind of influence though are very rarely murderers, rapists or scam artists.

*Any international databse would have to have 100% equal access/disclosure between all participants and should probably only include criminal/violent offences, stuff that would generally be illegal in every country. Traffic offences and some other offences would probably be too much.

smashey · 23-01-2008 10:56am

Mairt, by your logic here, if somebody is convicted and serves their sentence, at the end of the the sentence, they shouldn't be allowed to travel.

Surely this is just a continuation of the sentence?

arybvtcw0eolkf · 23-01-2008 10:59am

smashey wrote: »

So if somebody is convicted and serves their sentence, at the end of the the sentence, they shouldn't be allowed to travel.

Surely this is just a continuation of the sentence?

Big deal, seriously!.

At least for a few year's I think you should be restricted.

Plus using that argument that its just a continuation of a sentence, is that what the sex offender's register is then?... Should we allow sex offenders just to walk out of prison and have free travel and access to our communities, like hell we should.

seamus · 23-01-2008 11:02am

smashey wrote: »

Surely this is just a continuation of the sentence?

Some countries, most notably the US, simply don't allow offenders in, whether or not their sentence has been served.

Such a system wouldn't prevent anyone from travelling but it would allow the destination country to decide whether or not they want someone with a conviction in.

ven0m · 23-01-2008 11:05am

smashey wrote: »

Mairt, by your logic here, if somebody is convicted and serves their sentence, at the end of the the sentence, they shouldn't be allowed to travel.

Surely this is just a continuation of the sentence?

If you've a conviction, you can forget about entering the U.S. or Australia AFAIK .......... Countries should have the right to say who can or cannot enter, just like the U.K. home office refused Snoop Dogg a work permit based on his criminal convictions past. What I don't get is, the U.S. won't allow anyone else in with a criminal conviction, but we allow their crims (regardless of celebrity) into our countries .........

:::: ven0mous ::::

smashey · 23-01-2008 11:07am

You didn't specifically mention sex offenders. You said...

mairt wrote:

and I don't see why our own homegrown criminal eliment should have free movement outside the state either.

Anybody with a conviction, no matter how minor should have their travel restricted? Unless you want to define "criminal element".

Mairt wrote: »

Big deal, seriously!.

At least for a few year's I think you should be restricted.

Plus using that argument that its just a continuation of a sentence, is that what the sex offender's register is then?... Should we allow sex offenders just to walk out of prison and have free travel and access to our communities, like hell we should.

smashey · 23-01-2008 11:10am

ven0m wrote: »

If you've a conviction, you can forget about entering the U.S. or Australia AFAIK .......... Countries should have the right to say who can or cannot enter, just like the U.K. home office refused Snoop Dogg a work permit based on his criminal convictions past. What I don't get is, the U.S. won't allow anyone else in with a criminal conviction, but we allow their crims (regardless of celebrity) into our countries .........

:::: ven0mous ::::

This isn't about the US, UK or Australia. Mairt's arguement was that they shouldn't be allowed leave Ireland at all.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 23-01-2008 11:13am

smashey wrote: »

You didn't specifically mention sex offenders. You said...

Anybody with a conviction, no matter how minor should have their travel restricted? Unless you want to define "criminal element".

Use your cop-on, does two penalty points on your licence put you into the "criminal element"?..

Assault, sexual assault/rapes, robberies, murder & man slaughter, arson, dealing drugs etc, seriously I'm not in the mood for spelling out every single thing, I'm sure you have a fair idea.

ScumLord · 23-01-2008 11:17am

Anyone that commits any crime should have their right to free movement taken away. **** that, I have a criminal conviction that doesn't make me a bad person.

People reform and do their time and shouldn't have one mistake they made in their past hanging over their heads their hole lifes.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 23-01-2008 11:20am

ScumLord wrote: »

Anyone that commits any crime should have their right to free movement taken away. **** that, I have a criminal conviction that doesn't make me a bad person.

People reform and do their time and shouldn't have one mistake they made in their past hanging over their heads their hole lifes.

I don't think its unreasonable to put a restriction on travel for convicted crimnals, say 'five years clean' and you can travel, or if not travel then certainly I think you should have a residency restriction for longer.

smashey · 23-01-2008 11:22am

Criminal
–noun
6.a person guilty or convicted of a crime.

Say a young lad of 18 years old gets into a fight and is arrested and charged with affray, possibly GBH or whatever. He is taken to court and found guilty. He is therefore a criminal.

It's just that from your first post, this lad should never be allowed to leave the country as he would have a criminal record.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 23-01-2008 11:26am

smashey wrote: »

Criminal
–noun
6.a person guilty or convicted of a crime.

Say a young lad of 18 years old gets into a fight and is arrested and charged with affray, possibly GBH or whatever. He is taken to court and found guilty. He is therefore a criminal.

It's just that from your first post, this lad should never be allowed to leave the country as he would have a criminal record.

Where did I say ''never''... Even penalty points are wiped clean after two year's.

ScumLord · 23-01-2008 11:30am

That freedoms of movement be restricted at all is bad. Movement around Europe shouldn't be restricted and to do so, especially in Europe would cost a fortune to enforce. I don't think any state in Europe would go for it anyway it goes against everything the EU stands for.

On the US website they say you only need to have a clean criminal record for the previous five years.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 23-01-2008 11:37am

ScumLord wrote: »

On the US website they say you only need to have a clean criminal record for the previous five years.

There ya go, and whats the harm in impliments that here?.

ScumLord · 23-01-2008 11:59am

Whats the point? What would all that hassle, segregation and loss of rights achieve in the long run other than more paper work for an already over bureaucratic organisation. Money can be much better spent on things that can make a difference.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 23-01-2008 12:06pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Whats the point? What would all that hassle, segregation and loss of rights achieve in the long run other than more paper work for an already over bureaucratic organisation. Money can be much better spent on things that can make a difference.

Well it would have made a difference to that young lady whose Chech killer was jailed the other day. He had twenty five previous convictions!.

And thats just one.

And why should other countries suffer our criminals?.

I think a system of red flagging potential threats is way over due.

Like another poster said, how about a European wide criminal database to red flag these people?. Or endorse their passports or national ID cards.

Driver's licence endorcements etc..

Comments