Gardaí want fingerprints taken in all arrests

robinph · 14-04-2010 03:04PM

sam34 wrote: »

if someone was a criminal trying to conceal their real identity they might well have reason to have forged id

Yes, but this is just about fingerprinting anyone that happens to have been arrested for anything. If they have a reason to suspect that the ID is forged then they will be keeping you in until they can prove it one way or another.

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

You'd be on here making a case for fingerprinting if they were to announce that they wanted everyone to carry ID at all times.

I don't think fingerprinting would be preferable to ID cards, but I don't like the idea of compulsory ID cards. Despite that though I'd be confident of being able to prove I was who I claimed even if I didn't happen to have any ID on me at the time.

DazMarz · 14-04-2010 03:05PM

Do a John Rambo on it; act the prick and then tear the police station apart...:D

Amalgam · 14-04-2010 03:06PM

k_mac wrote: »

Not a great contribution there. I presume you are against the idea of a database for DNA? I don't see the problem with it if access is properly restricted.

Have fun trying to get health insurance once a politician sees euro signs in his\her eyes and decides to 'ease off' on regulation in the future, for the good of society.

Cookie_Monster · 14-04-2010 03:07PM

Compulsory ID cards (ala Germany etc)
Compulsory DNA database (updated at birth/entry into country)

then you don't need to worry about having your finger prints taken ever again

Biggins · 14-04-2010 03:07PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Because we don't see why the gardai should get to take fingerprints of people who are not subsequently charged with an offence (in other words people who leave the station without a stain on their character).

WHAT stain?
So its been documented somewhere that a persons fingerprints were taken and he/she due to them was found to be totally innocent.

O' thats a shocking stain on one character!
To have it in a file that one is innocent. O' the horror!

hooradiation · 14-04-2010 03:08PM

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Did I quote a 'technicality' again or did I show figures for 'lack of evidence'?

Are you trying to say now that people don't get off due to lack of evidence?

No, please use your eyes to read the words. I've said "getting off on a technicality" is a myth.
Lack of evidence isn't a technicality, it's a lack of evidence.

And, yes, people do get off due to lack of evidence, no argument there.

Biggins wrote: »

I won't expect any less of a comment from you towards me.
Go get that chip off your shoulder would you please about me!
ANY opportunity to have a go, you will.

You've just implied that people who have issues with the system being proposed have less than honorable motivations so i think "having a go" at you is more than justified.

For someone who claims to despise gutter politics you have no problem using those tactics when it suits you.

Paddy Samurai · 14-04-2010 03:08PM

Won't bother me , I usually wear gloves.

robinph · 14-04-2010 03:08PM

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Your really not getting the whole 'ID can be forged' bit are you?

...and fingerprints and dna are not foolproof systems.

ID can be faked, if they have a reason to think that I'm showing them fake ID though then they will use other methods to prove my identity, or disprove what I'm claiming to them. Your assuming that everyone who is arrested is some kind of international criminal mastermind with 10 different passports to hand for whenever the local plod happens to feel their collar.

Wile E. Coyote · 14-04-2010 03:09PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

People should be found not guilty or cases thrown out if there is 'lack of evidence'?

I don't see any circumstances where giving the guards tis new power would change any of these cases.

You'd be happy to see someone who burgled your house walk free because the guards weren't able/allowed to prove who the prints found in your house belonged to? Thats the stupidest thing I've heard today.

sam34 · 14-04-2010 03:10PM

robinph wrote: »

Yes, but this is just about fingerprinting anyone that happens to have been arrested for anything. If they have a reason to suspect that the ID is forged then they will be keeping you in until they can prove it one way or another.

imagine the scenario that a repeat criminal is arrested and provides fake id as proof of his clean-living alter ego. now, if the gardai dont personally know him as being a repeat offender (maybe he was in an area where he wasnt known, eg those scumbags that travel form town to town preying on vulnerable elderly people living alone) they may accept his id in good faith. so off he goes to continue his illegal activities

but, if they were able to fingerprint him, and check it against a database, then it would be clear he had a murky past and was not the innocent party he was claiming to be.

i'm not au fait enough with criminal law to know whether they can hold someone indefinitely until they verify whether or not id is genuine

Prof.Badass · 14-04-2010 03:10PM

Biggins wrote: »

Those that don't want the Gardi to have an advantage, I'd have to question "why?" and the motive behind that feeling in some cases!

Because the state and the police are the ones with the power. Power which is liable to abuse (it does happen, maybe not that often but it happens nonetheless......and you have to wonder how many miscarraiges of justice actually end up being corrected in the end (corruption is real you know)).

Because more power= more power to abuse (the justice system is only made up of people afterall), the ideal balance is where state and police have as little power as possible but still have enough to let them do their job.

For this reason increases in state/police power should always be met with caution. Another good reason to limit police power is because governments have and will probably continue to bring in dumb/unfair laws. Nobody here knows what the world will be like in 30/40 years time, let alone what sort of government we'll have. Being flippant about our civil liberties now could come back to bite some of us in the ass in decades to come. Ok, the chances are slim, but civil liberties shouldn't be based on chance.

MagicSean · 14-04-2010 03:11PM

robinph wrote: »

Yes, but this is just about fingerprinting anyone that happens to have been arrested for anything. If they have a reason to suspect that the ID is forged then they will be keeping you in until they can prove it one way or another.

I don't think fingerprinting would be preferable to ID cards, but I don't like the idea of compulsory ID cards. Despite that though I'd be confident of being able to prove I was who I claimed even if I didn't happen to have any ID on me at the time.

So you are against fingerprinting but would be ok with Gardaí holding someone indefinitely if they didn't have proper ID? You seem to think that Gardaí deal with people like you all the time. Mostly they couldn't care less about you. They want these powers to deal with career criminals who are wanted under many different identities for many different crimes because there is no way of checking their identity when they are arrested. People like you go around blinkered to the real world. You think laws are passed to "get" you and ruin your privacy. Laws like these are needed to catch dangerous people who know how to avoid detection. I'm sorry to burst your ego bubble but the "man" has no interest in you or what you eat for breakfast.

Biggins · 14-04-2010 03:15PM

hooradiation wrote: »

You've just implied that people who have issues with the system being proposed have less than honorable motivations so i think "having a go" at you is more than justified.

For someone who claims to despise gutter politics you have no problem using those tactics when it suits you.

Do me and the rest of us a favour - go back and state what I've actually WRITTEN.

Please note I said "SOME" - but hell, lets gloss over that for the sake of having yet another dig and rewording my words.
I used to that from you.

I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with a good system of accountability -
Have ALWAYS said that - ALWAYS WILL. Get over it.
Its about time the Gardi have their detection abilities improved yet again where possible too!

Sykk · 14-04-2010 03:15PM

robinph wrote: »

...and fingerprints and dna are not foolproof systems.

ID can be faked, if they have a reason to think that I'm showing them fake ID though then they will use other methods to prove my identity, or disprove what I'm claiming to them. Your assuming that everyone who is arrested is some kind of international criminal mastermind with 10 different passports to hand for whenever the local plod happens to feel their collar.

Don't worry, Jack Bauer won't let anyone cheat the system

MagicSean · 14-04-2010 03:21PM

Amalgam wrote: »

Have fun trying to get health insurance once a politician sees euro signs in his\her eyes and decides to 'ease off' on regulation in the future, for the good of society.

Like I said it would have to be restricted. Anything might happen in the future but fear is no reason to refrain from doing something.

hooradiation wrote: »

No, please use your eyes to read the words. I've said "getting off on a technicality" is a myth.
Lack of evidence isn't a technicality, it's a lack of evidence.

And, yes, people do get off due to lack of evidence, no argument there.

You've just implied that people who have issues with the system being proposed have less than honorable motivations so i think "having a go" at you is more than justified.

For someone who claims to despise gutter politics you have no problem using those tactics when it suits you.

Have you ever seen a drink driving case contested. A garda giving evidence has to recite a whole speel by heart. It's more like a memory test. If they miss a word or two or say something wrong the whole case can be thrown out. That is a technicality.

robinph wrote: »

...and fingerprints and dna are not foolproof systems.

ID can be faked, if they have a reason to think that I'm showing them fake ID though then they will use other methods to prove my identity, or disprove what I'm claiming to them. Your assuming that everyone who is arrested is some kind of international criminal mastermind with 10 different passports to hand for whenever the local plod happens to feel their collar.

You assume that everyone arrested is innocent as you are. Newsflash gardaí have no interest in arresting innocent people despite what you might read on indymedia.

sam34 wrote: »

imagine the scenario that a repeat criminal is arrested and provides fake id as proof of his clean-living alter ego. now, if the gardai dont personally know him as being a repeat offender (maybe he was in an area where he wasnt known, eg those scumbags that travel form town to town preying on vulnerable elderly people living alone) they may accept his id in good faith. so off he goes to continue his illegal activities

but, if they were able to fingerprint him, and check it against a database, then it would be clear he had a murky past and was not the innocent party he was claiming to be.

i'm not au fait enough with criminal law to know whether they can hold someone indefinitely until they verify whether or not id is genuine

It depends on the reason for arrest. There is powers to detain someone for the purposes of identifying them under immigration, oublic order and traffic legislation. Also if someone is charged and their identity is under question they can be refused bail.

Slugs · 14-04-2010 03:23PM

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

You'd be happy to see someone who burgled your house walk free because the guards weren't able/allowed to prove who the prints found in your house belonged to? Thats the stupidest thing I've heard today.

You've never heard of gloves?

Wile E. Coyote · 14-04-2010 03:24PM

Slugs wrote: »

You've never heard of gloves?

You've never heard that some criminals are idiots?

MaybeLogic · 14-04-2010 03:25PM

This is one of the reasons why I would be against fingerprinting of innocent (yet to be proven guilty/charged with minor crime) people...

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/29/1941206

Am I not a sovereign individual with rights as to the uses and abuses of my body?* Why as an innocent person should I allow somebody to file and store a copy of what is essentially my private property.
A bad road to start down, imo.

*(no I'm not or I could take whatever drugs I wanted, without it constituting a crime)

MagicSean · 14-04-2010 03:28PM

MaybeLogic wrote: »

This is one of the reasons why I would be against fingerprinting of innocent (yet to be proved innocent/charged with minor crime) people...

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/29/1941206

Am I not a sovereign individual with rights as to the uses and abuses of my body?* Why as an innocent person should I allow somebody to file and store a copy of what is essentially my private property.
A bad road to start down, imo.

*(no I'm not or I could take whatever drugs I wanted, without it constituting a crime)

This is getting ridiculous. Can you people not read. I have already said that Gardaí can take fingerprints of someone who is "innocent" and hasn't been charged. They want to be able to take the prints of people who are arrested for minor offences who will be charged or who have no proof of identity.

gu10 · 14-04-2010 03:29PM

Always the Dubs with with their authoritarian stance...

MaybeLogic · 14-04-2010 03:31PM

k_mac wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous. Can you people not read. I have already said that Gardaí can take fingerprints of someone who is "innocent" and hasn't been charged. They want to be able to take the prints of people who are arrested for minor offences who will be charged or who have no proof of identity.

Yes, I got all that when I read the news report, thanks.

Slugs · 14-04-2010 03:33PM

k_mac wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous. Can you people not read. I have already said that Gardaí can take fingerprints of someone who is "innocent" and hasn't been charged. They want to be able to take the prints of people who are arrested for minor offences who will be charged or who have no proof of identity.

And what use is this if say a person's first offence is a homocide. How exactly do you plan on catching a violator if this is their first time. Which is why if you're going to implement this, you need a nationwide database. And which is also why, this is a BAD idea. You're wasting taxpayer's money, you're invading people's privacy and you're assuming that everyone is likely to commit a crime. For ****'s sake, take a ****ing chance. Have some damn fun once and a while, enjoy a little murder mystery

rasper · 14-04-2010 03:35PM

like everything it starts out small only the criminals, then everyone who's tax is out on their car or doesn't renew their tv licence on time. Then it builds up that there's a full file on everyone who happens to live in the country.
How about less government and religious intrusion in my life , thank you

Biggins · 14-04-2010 03:39PM

vinylmesh wrote: »

Because the state and the police are the ones with the power. Power which is liable to abuse (it does happen, maybe not that often but it happens nonetheless......and you have to wonder how many miscarraiges of justice actually end up being corrected in the end (corruption is real you know)).

Because more power= more power to abuse (the justice system is only made up of people afterall), the ideal balance is where state and police have as little power as possible but still have enough to let them do their job.

For this reason increases in state/police power should always be met with caution. Another good reason to limit police power is because governments have and will probably continue to bring in dumb/unfair laws. Nobody here knows what the world will be like in 30/40 years time, let alone what sort of government we'll have. Being flippant about our civil liberties now could come back to bite some of us in the ass in decades to come. Ok, the chances are slim, but civil liberties shouldn't be based on chance.

Nothing there I disagree with.
You will have noted I hope that I said I would question "SOME" as to those whom I would wonder about not wanting this new possibility.
You will also note the words "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" stuck under my name for months now.

I wouldn't question some people motives either for questioning this law. I would hope ye would (if only for the sake of legal protections of me and my offspring).
Those that are in a criminal class - again - I would question their motives to objecting to this possible detection ability.

minotour · 14-04-2010 03:40PM

Folks, all technical, operational, legal, social, privacy and otherwise issues aside. What you must realise here is "if" this was introduced it would see the actual database and processing requirements of the AFIS (FP system) grow exponentially which means higher costs and ultimatly they cant afford it. its no more than wishful thinking by the lower ranks, overworked, underfunded and ultimatly disenfranchised Gardai.

Biggins · 14-04-2010 03:44PM

minotour wrote: »

Folks, all technical, operational, legal, social, privacy and otherwise issues aside. What you must realise here is "if" this was introduced it would see the actual database and processing requirements of the AFIS (FP system) grow exponentially which means higher costs and ultimatly they cant afford it. its no more than wishful thinking by the lower ranks, overworked, underfunded and ultimatly disenfranchised Gardai.

So we have to ask ourselves a question.
Which do we hold more important?

Greater detection abilities, crime solving and possibly lesser crime and/or deterrents...
or
Letting crime win by putting profit before lives/property on just how much we can do!

I'm not for handing the Gardi money just as they please, but something as basic as fingerprints is a damn good start to curbing potential future crimes and detection rates.
If we can't afford something as basic as that - we might as well give up right now.

"grow exponentially"
...And by the way as numbers increase in records so do deaths of criminals.
By natural causes or not.
There will be an up and a down in numbers - I'm hoping it will be the latter some day and not the former.
Till then I hope any abilities we give the Gardi (with proper built in safe guards) actually do their job.
Lets give them a better chance, not pull the rug from under their feet just as they step on it.

MagicSean · 14-04-2010 03:44PM

Slugs wrote: »

And what use is this if say a person's first offence is a homocide. How exactly do you plan on catching a violator if this is their first time. Which is why if you're going to implement this, you need a nationwide database. And which is also why, this is a BAD idea. You're wasting taxpayer's money, you're invading people's privacy and you're assuming that everyone is likely to commit a crime. For ****'s sake, take a ****ing chance. Have some damn fun once and a while, enjoy a little murder mystery

They already have the power to take the fingerprints of someone who has been arrested for homicide. And there is already a national database for unidentified prints to compare a persons prints to. It's not wasting taxpayers money. It would be cheaper and more efficient as it would be done electronically. And everyone who has been arrested to be charged has committed a crime. That is why they are being arrested.

Fremen · 14-04-2010 03:45PM

I've read through a good proportion of the posts by now, and one thing no-one has brought up is supression of political opposition.

This is the reason people should be opposed to increased police powers. Not because of miscarriages of justice, which are relatively rare. The point is that once a law increasing police powers has been enacted, it is very difficult to remove.

Pretty much any government you care to name is capable of abusing its powers. Look at the abuses of the Patriot act in the USA. The fact that the British government used Terror legislation to harass journalists and settle banking disputes in the financial crisis.

"Shell to sea" campaigners annoying you? Take their fingerprints, scan for a criminal record and discredit them for some minor crime a campaigner may have been involved in ten years ago.

No-one denies that catching criminals is a good thing, but it's foolish to think that that's the only use for police or governmental powers.

minotour · 14-04-2010 03:52PM

I sat through a morning in the district coursts recently, there's a huge potential for Identity fraud there. At one point the judge couldnt clarify if the defendant was the same guy that was arrested 2 weeks before at a different district for a much more serious charge. If these measures were introduced they could be used to alleviate such issues and thats just one example.

Horse_box · 14-04-2010 03:55PM

Say if I got caught having a leak down an alley way at 4am because there is no public toilets in the area. This is breaking the law, a law nearly everyone has broken at some stage

Should I have to give finger prints if I were to get caught performing a basic bodily function because there is no public toilets?

Gardaí want fingerprints taken in all arrests

Comments