[Newsbot]

Title: Justice changes include fingerprinting without charge
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: RUEZ
Date: 2009-05-20 13:39:39
Canadian

[BungleZippy]

This is like what they have done in Britain with the DNA register.

[RUEZ]

I don't care for this idea much.

[hurley_108]

RUEZ RUEZ:

I don't care for this idea much.

Nor I. If they don't have enough on you to even lay a charge, what are they fingerprinting you for?

[BungleZippy]

I agree. It looks like another excuse to collect people's personal information without cause. The age of anonymity is nearly over!

[EyeBrock]

From a technical stand point, this is aimed at BC where people are arrested, held for bail awaiting crown prosecutors to approve the charge, so it really isn’t breaching anybodies rights. These are accused persons who’s crimes are of a level that they are not being released from Police custody and it’s up to a court/justice/judge to decide if they can be inflicted on society or held until trial.

In Ontario Police lay the charge so an accused arrested and held for a bail hearing is fingerprinted while in custody, then brought before a judge/justice to answer the Police charges. Fingerprints/photo are done once the accused is charged.

That's what I'm getting out of it so I'm not thinking this is more to bring BC in line with other Provinces but preserving their kinda weird way of doing business.
There people are arrested by Police and could be in custody for some time before a crown lays a charge. Very silly but they seem to like it in BC.

Taking DNA from accused would be a very good idea. It would stop a lot of guilty people getting off but the lawyers wouldn't like something so definitive as irrefutable evidence of their clients guilt so I can't see us getting it.

It works very well in the UK and Australia and only the guilty need to worry about their DNA being at a crime scene.

Guilty of something bungle. Hey how's Jeffrey?

[Freakinoldguy]

What's the big deal.................unless you intend to commit a crime at some point in the future or have already committed a crime.

I can remember my dad telling me about a guy who served with distinction in the second world war, who after discharge, took up his previous occupation as a cat burgalar. He ended up getting arrested because his fingerprints were on file in Ottawa, even though all the Vet's had been assured they'd be destroyed as soon as the war was over.

So if you've ever been in the Military or arrested before the Charter, for anything, your finger prints are on file. Don't commit a crime and they won't bother you.

Given the advances in forensics it seems like an outmoded system anyway since people leave DNA markings all over the place whenever they commit a crime.

Let's just expand the DNA data bank to include everyone and that should shut the complainers up.

[EyeBrock]

Well, if you don't commit crime you really have nothing to stress about. On the other hand, if you are a bad guy, watch out mate!

[Freakinoldguy]

That's the point I was trying to make. I've had my fingerprints on file in two countries for over 40 some years and I still can't see why some of these people get all wired up about it.

[ridenrain]

Tough luck. You get caught, you already have to provide a name so this is just one step further.

Maybe now when an illegal handgun is found under the seat of a drug dealers car, they won't be able to use the excuse, " I didn't know it was there". Maybe they can run the prints and match them with the ones on the gun?
..sounds good but that's not good enough because all these little shits already have records and are on bail for weapons charges already.

[Proculation]

Humm.... I don't really understand what is the difference. When you are arrested, you get your picture and fingerprints. What will be the difference if they fingerprint you when you are "accused of a serious crime" ?

[Choban]

I'm thinking if it comes to the point that they have brought you in, then they should be able to print you. In this day of DNA and forensic evidence I wouldn't worry if the cops had my prints.
Long and short of it is, mostley only thoses with something to hide would put up a huge fuss about it.

[EyeBrock]

Proculation Proculation:

Humm.... I don't really understand what is the difference. When you are arrested, you get your picture and fingerprints. What will be the difference if they fingerprint you when you are "accused of a serious crime" ?

Well, reread my post and you will see the difference.

[EyeBrock]

Choban Choban:

I'm thinking if it comes to the point that they have brought you in, then they should be able to print you. In this day of DNA and forensic evidence I wouldn't worry if the cops had my prints.
Long and short of it is, mostley only thoses with something to hide would put up a huge fuss about it.

Choban, BC.

Google it.

[Proculation]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Proculation Proculation:

Humm.... I don't really understand what is the difference. When you are arrested, you get your picture and fingerprints. What will be the difference if they fingerprint you when you are "accused of a serious crime" ?

Well, reread my post and you will see the difference.

Oh Ok thanks.

So it's not really a great thing. In BC you do not get finerprinted while arrested ? That's strange.