child fingerprinting

[Inkthinker]

Re: this week's column (3/05), are the fingerprint records of a child particularly useful in identifying that child as an adult? I went through a similar process to the one Steven described... they came to my school in 2nd grade, rather than stopping my parents outside the grocery store, but I seem to recall that the preventative message was about the same. That would be about 25-28 years ago (how old are kids in 2nd grade?), so it's not as though this is a new schtick, but given the encroaching sense of privacy loss in the Information Age, I can see why it feels even creepier today.

At any rate, I never considered that those prints might be useful in identifying me today... certainly the hands I have now aren't the same hands I had when I was 6 years old. Laying aside the scars and such that I've gained, my fingers have grown quite a bit. Are the patterns the same, even so? Do fingerprinted prepubescents = fingerprinted adults?

[Imaginos666]

I can't think of a single case of fingerprints being used to locate a child. Ever.
Steve was right when he said most child abductions are the work of someone with whom they are familiar. They others? I can't imagine fingerprints being of ANY use. I think too many people think law enforcement is like CSI, which resembles a Judge Dredd comic more than reality (here in South Carolina it takes weeks, sometimes months, to complete fingerprint analysis.)

So yeah, I'd say the "Fingerprints could be useful in identifying your child's corpse" argument is hollow.

[mattx110]

Fingerprints are useful after you know who was where and when, and are putting evidence together for a trial.

Actually finding people? I dunno.

[Ben Morgan]

Are the patterns the same, even so? Do fingerprinted prepubescents = fingerprinted adults?
To answer your question, your fingerprints stay the same

[bartl]

I can't think of a single case of fingerprints being used to locate a child. Ever.
However, I believe that the parents keep the fingerprint records, and they are only given to the police in the event that the child does disappear. I suspect that, especially if a younger child is kidnapped and found several years later, it would help with positive ID.

Mind you, one thing that HAS identified children under those circumstances is FOOTPRINTS, which are usually taken at birth (I looked at that sentence 4 times, and I THINK I have singular/plural right there).

[Imaginos666]

However, I believe that the parents keep the fingerprint records, and they are only given to the police in the event that the child does disappear. I suspect that, especially if a younger child is kidnapped and found several years later, it would help with positive ID.

Mind you, one thing that HAS identified children under those circumstances is FOOTPRINTS, which are usually taken at birth (I looked at that sentence 4 times, and I THINK I have singular/plural right there).

The first time I heard about the fingerprint initiative was in the 1990s, and the police kept the records/prints when I saw this being conducted.

I've been fingerprinted once, and that was because I sold guns ... it was allegedly for my own protection, in case my prints wound up on a weapon used in a crime. Technically, I could have shot anyone I wanted as long as there wasn't a witness, because those records would always provide an explanation for why my prints were on said weapon :)

[dancj]

Mind you, one thing that HAS identified children under those circumstances is FOOTPRINTS, which are usually taken at birth (I looked at that sentence 4 times, and I THINK I have singular/plural right there).
That sentence is fine. You're talking about the act of using footprints which is only one act.

[Floyd The Barber]

The first time I heard about the fingerprint initiative was in the 1990s, and the police kept the records/prints when I saw this being conducted.

I can confirm for you that I've heard of it as far back as the very early 80's when I was still in school. And the fuzz was gonna keep records. My parents were one of few who refused to let it happen. They saw no realistic way it would help during an abduction and didn't want their young son to be treated like a criminal. I later found out that their reasoning was also that if I did something the police didn't like later on in life that I'd have a better chance of getting away with it. Now that's unwavering family loyalty. Thanks mom and dad!

[bartl]

I can confirm for you that I've heard of it as far back as the very early 80's when I was still in school. And the fuzz was gonna keep records. My parents were one of few who refused to let it happen. They saw no realistic way it would help during an abduction and didn't want their young son to be treated like a criminal. I later found out that their reasoning was also that if I did something the police didn't like later on in life that I'd have a better chance of getting away with it. Now that's unwavering family loyalty. Thanks mom and dad!
There is a lecture I sometimes give, on the need to create ethical and legal systems based on technology that has not yet been developed (such as, for example, cloning). At one point, I ask the audience, "How many people believe themselves to be honest?" A number of hands usually go up. I then ask, "How many of you believe an honest person has nothing to hide?" Usually, a few hands go down. Then, I ask, "Of those who are left, who wants to say their name, social security number, and mother's maiden name to the audience?" When the rest of the hands go down, I say, "An honest person has MUCH to hide, from DIShonest people. And just because most of the people in a group may be honest does not mean that they all are." (for those who are curious, this leads into discussion of new technology which reduces our privacy).

[Floyd The Barber]

There is a lecture I sometimes give, on the need to create ethical and legal systems based on technology that has not yet been developed (such as, for example, cloning). At one point, I ask the audience, "How many people believe themselves to be honest?" A number of hands usually go up. I then ask, "How many of you believe an honest person has nothing to hide?" Usually, a few hands go down. Then, I ask, "Of those who are left, who wants to say their name, social security number, and mother's maiden name to the audience?" When the rest of the hands go down, I say, "An honest person has MUCH to hide, from DIShonest people. And just because most of the people in a group may be honest does not mean that they all are." (for those who are curious, this leads into discussion of new technology which reduces our privacy).

I have said this sincerely to only a handful of people ever:
You are obviously a man of great wisdom.

What baffles me is the endless drones that never think of this and are all to willing to give up their (and everyone else's for that matter) privacy.

[Steven Grant]

They're mainly willing to give up everyone else's privacy, since they never think these things will/do apply to them. After all, why would the cops even want access to their phone calls and bank records?

Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition...

- Grant

[Inkthinker]

And just for the record, they no longer employ The Comfy Chair.