The Tories introduced legislation that would allow police to collect fingerprints before a person is charged with a crime and would not require the police to destroy those fingerprints should the person never be charged. The Tories argue that this is about “streamlining” the affairs of police to make them more efficient. But here’s the thing. Consider this quote from Rob Nicholson, the Justice minister:
“Crime is constantly evolving in Canada so it is crucial that our criminal justice system evolves with it.”
Now, I like Rob Nicholson. But what the fuck does that even mean? Let’s be blunt: the only reason for this legislation is to give police the power to collect fingerprints of people who can’t be proven to be criminals, or even can’t be charged with a crime because there’s reasonable and probable grounds to charge them with a crime. How comfortable are you with the police having that power? Because I’m not.
I’m not reflexively anti-cop, or even generally anti-cop. I think cops in Canada do a valuable and difficult job and most of the time they do it very well. But here’s the thing: since policing is always going to be a political hobbyhorse of one stripe or another, the cops always feel a bit besieged. That sucks and it’s not fair to them, but it’s not fair that doctors are expected to be miracle-workers or that lawyers are fodder for jokes about amorality when we all know that we should be making those jokes about accountants instead.1
But the practical public downside of the cops feeling besieged is this: they tend to close ranks when one of their own is accused of wrongdoing, be that accusation merited or not. Usually it isn’t. But when it is, they protect bad actors within the system. And I this is exactly why I don’t like giving the police additional powers that are obviously and blatantly fodder for abuse – and this is definitely an abusive power just waiting to be used improperly.
Top comment: I look forward to you getting telepathic judges and super-speed cops to deal with the rampaging mutant criminal element. — lilacsigil
- Take that, beanpushers. [↩]
Related Articles
16 users responded in this post
Dude, that’s step one toward totalitarianism.
Also, a MASSIVE invasion of privacy.
I hope that doesn’t pass, best of luck my Canadian brother.
…Seriously though, that’s f’n scary.
There is a very simple defense against this stupidity. Just remind the moron that intelligent criminals have already evolved beyond worrying about fingerprints.
They’re called gloves and they’ve been around longer than fingerprint technology has been.
major crime has been down for a decade, from martin at least, hasn’t it?
I’m still not clear on how the police having my fingerprints — or my DNA — on file could be used to oppress me.
Will, I think the main reason why is because they could be later used to claim you were guilty of a crime you did not commit-and they could bring records from the “crime scene” (your fingerprints or DNA from the file) out to match those taken from you after you were arrested. In an honest court case, this would be extremely unlikely, maybe even impossible-but if they wanted to punish you for a crime they think you committed and were then acquitted of, or even not charged with, they might use that tactic. Or if the police became a political tool, that could be used as a way to seemingly discredit political opponents.
My prints have been on file since 1984 when my fellow kindergarten students were fingerprinted by an RCMP constable in case of child abduction.
“Crime is constantly evolving in Canada so it is crucial that our criminal justice system evolves with it.”
I look forward to you getting telepathic judges and super-speed cops to deal with the rampaging mutant criminal element.
“I look forward to you getting telepathic judges and super-speed cops to deal with the rampaging mutant criminal element.”
Dammit, I KNEW I should have gone into law or criminal justice. 🙁 Now I’ll just be one of those helpless guys in the background running away from the action trying to avoid falling tanker trucks. Guidance councellors suck.
They used to do that “fingerprint your kids in case they get kidnapped” thing when I was younger. It bugs me, especially since it’s completely worthless. Fingerprints can only prove you were there, by the time they’re collected and analyzed, you’re long gone. So they should have come out and said “We just want these so we can more easily finger them as a suspect when they’re older.”
Not to mention now that we have nationwide databases, the fingerprint method is falling apart. People on opposite sides of the country have been found to have the same fingerprints. The more innocent people you fingerprint, the more you clog the system with false positives.
Forgive my non-Canadian heritage, but the article also mentions people being arrested but not having charges laid against them for several days or at all. (Apparently, it is a concern if people who are never charged don’t get fingerprinted, WTF?)
Back to my question, are they saying it is okay to hold someone for several days without charges being laid? I know our police can’t hold someone for more than 24 hours without charging them. Is taht not true in Canada?
Kidnapping-repellent fingerprinting may not be effective, but when you’re like six, it is a HELL of a lot of fun. I figured they really did it to us just to keep us occupied.
Kris, the fingerprints they take from kids are meant to help confirm identity once the kid is found, if the kid can’t or won’t speak the truth (is dead, is actually a runaway, has been living with the kidnapper for 15 years and believes the kidnapper is the real parent, etc). It was never meant as a means of actually finding the kid. DNA tests are better for that, of course, but they didn’t have those when they started fingerprinting programs.
Also, I’ve never heard of people being found with the same prints–and you’d think that’d be news, since for over a century we’ve been assured that it never happens. Direct me to your source?
candlejack:
http://www.docbug.com/blog/archives/000691.html is a case of an innocent near-miss going badly awry.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/03/09/1579301.htm is a longer exploration of the flaws of assuming no error is possible in fingerprinting.
Just in general, though, if there is not an immediate and compelling interest in invading and storing someone’s private data–even in aggregate–it shouldn’t be done.
“Back to my question, are they saying it is okay to hold someone for several days without charges being laid?”
I assume that Canada has a system of police bail, like in the UK: “You can go now, but we might still be charging you, so don’t leave town for a couple of days”.
“Beanpushers”?
Is that a cross between bean counters and pencil pushers?
Oh, I know there’s many, many very similar prints, and that the same person’s print is never exactly the same twice due to the circumstances it was taken under, and that fingerprint experts are not the infallible creatures they (and we) would like to believe. Human error and near misses have always been a problem.
I’m also aware of the fact that, statistically, there could be identical fingerprints. I just had not (and still haven’t) ever seen proof that it has actually happened.
That’s what I wanted to see–an article (or better yet, a photo) of two people with fingerprints that aren’t just “close enough”, but actually identical. Not because I was trying to be a dick, but just because that’s something I really, really want to see.