• Forum Moderator applications are now open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.

A good way to stop criminals

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Juicy Jazzy

New Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
323
Reaction score
0
I suggested this at work and was almost shot down instantly, though I still think its a good idea to help prevent misbehavour etc. Of course it wont totally prevent it but I think its a good way to prevent it.

Why doesn't the government just take everyones fingerprints and/or DNA so if any crime is committed they dont have to get court warrants etc. There are unsolved murders etc and the killer has left fingerprints, DNA but since the criminal has not been arrested before his/her data is not in the database.

But if there was a database with everyones information they would be caught, trailled and hopefully put into jail where they belong. This could alst deter potential future crimes. The replies I had were:

- Easier to put innocent people into jail;
- Invasion of privacy; and
- massive costs and time so it 'isn't worth it'.

What do you guys think? Is my idea a valid one? Do you have any other suggestions to stop criminals or to improve my theory?
 
Hmmm... it's a thoughtful and reasonable idea.

I do see some problems with it though. I don't know much about your nation's laws (I'm American) but I don't think this idea would be approved in America due to the fact that it would probably violate the fourth amendment of the US constitution in that taking everyone's fingerprints would constitute an illegal search and seizure because there wouldn't be sufficient evidence to take everyone's fingerprints and DNA samples. In the USA, any sort of evidence (like fingerprints etc.) can only be taken with a proper warrant and after the authorities prove there is reasonable suspicion that the person in question committed the crime in question. Even if this hurdle was crossed, the incredibly high costs would create more issues.

A suggestion I would have to add to your theory is that at a certain milestone for a person (I'm thinking either receiving a drivers license or registering to vote), the person would also have their fingerprint taken. This would cut costs (I think...) and make it more likely that everyone would get their prints in the database.
 
Totally against this. Obligatory DNA sampling is one of the greatest invasions of privacy there is.
 
They're actually putting it up for vote today at the Knesset. I really hope it won't pass. A biometric database is just going to make way for all sorts of abuse of the system that will hurt everyone on the long run.
 
TheProphetJerematic said:
But if you're innocent then you have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

But if they have your prints they can just make shit up and pin it on you. You touched something that said "do not touch"! Trespassing! 100 days in the county jail! It's like those red light cameras; those take pictures of your car if it's in the intersection when the light's red. It doesn't matter if it was red for .3 seconds or 30. And you get a moving violation. There's a major difference between the two; one, you're clearing the intersection while the other side is stopped, the other, the other side's traffic is likely flowing, and heavily at that.

Doing shit "just in case", and you shouldn't worry about it "if you're innocent", psh. Innocence is something none of us have. And besides, what if someone in the department in charge was responsible for a crime? Someone in the government itself? Hell of a lot easier to cover it up.
 
TheProphetJerematic said:
But if you're innocent then you have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

The spirit of the law is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Biometric databases start with the premise that everyone is guilty and it's only a matter of time before they get you. Which is just the starting point of my objections to it.

Then if you consider the number of false positives such a system would throw up you have a real reason to worry.
 
I think they were going to try that here in England, however so many people campaigned for them to not do it... so they had to stop.

Mostly because of peoples general privacy.
 
evkl said:
That'd be unconstitutional in America, so for me it's a rather moot point.
Click to expand...

So theres no possible way that your constitution could be changed?

There are a few things which should be changed but that deserves a seperate thread.
 
Juicy Jazzy said:
So theres no possible way that your constitution could be changed?

There are a few things which should be changed but that deserves a seperate thread.
Click to expand...

Well, the constitution can be changed, but no politician would ever even think about suggesting a change to one of the first ten amendments (the bill of rights, which includes the whole thing I wrote about a few posts up about the fourth amendment) because it would be political suicide to do so.

Therefore, even though I think it's a nice idea, it would never happen in the United States.
 
Terrible idea for reasons stated above. Feels good.
 
Besides, fingerprints can be faked and simply finding someone's DNA at the scene doesn't necessarily mean they commited the crime.
 
Well, this isn't exactly a fool-proof system. DNA electrophoresis takes time. And it'd be difficult to make certain you had EVERYONE show up to get on file.

Besides, DNA is a tricky thing. Just finding it laying around doesn't mean anything.
 
Ryuutakesh! said:
Well, this isn't exactly a fool-proof system. DNA electrophoresis takes time. And it'd be difficult to make certain you had EVERYONE show up to get on file.

Besides, DNA is a tricky thing. Just finding it laying around doesn't mean anything.
Click to expand...

There's some of my DNA in this towel next to my bed. Am I a murderer?
 
I don't like this idea, if only because it gives the government too much power over your individual body.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom