Question: Everyone in Canada should be fingerprinted and photographed to make law enforcement easier. Please provide an argument for and an argument against.
For:
Everyone in Canada should be photographed and fingerprinted because it would make it easier to catch criminals and over all make a law enforcement officer’s job less stressful. The reason for this would be that officers can identify who committed a crime by simply scanning a bank robber’s face from a surveillance camera then matching the photograph they took of him even 20 years ago (all because technology is moving so fast). This would not be an invasion of privacy because the police officers would not be using the face recognition from the photograph or fingerprints as a device to search through people’s personal lives, it would be used to identify criminals and would also help prevent crime from occurring. I.e. if people knew the government had a face recognizer and can instantly match fingerprints, many people would decide to rather live a crime free life and earn an honest way of living because they know that if the police are called to the crime, they can scan the fingerprints and find a match. The data base that holds this information would also help direct law enforcement to where the suspect lives, works, goes every week, the car he drive etc. which would help in quickly apprehending the culprit and bringing him to justice. An example of how useful fingerprinting technology is was when Jerry Watson was convicted of committing murder 30 years earlier. At the time (1978), the latent fingerprint from the crime scene could not give the police any leads. Technology kept advancing, which allowed the police force identify and test the fingerprint and after a few days, they identified the culprit to be Jerry Watson. Seeing that the idea of everyone being fingerprinted and photographed would solve and prevent crime in Canada, it would be a good idea to implement it into society.
Against:
Everyone in Canada should not be photographed or fingerprinted because it infringes on the Charter Rights all Canadian citizen are entitled to. Section 7 of the Charter states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security” but not everyone might feel that a database about them is upholding that right. People would feel like they are being monitored and watched even if they have done nothing wrong. Fingerprinting or photographing everyone (or even people accused of a crime) could lead people to believe that they themselves are considered criminals and that the government needs tabs on them to make sure no one commits a crime even if they never had the intention of committing the crime.
Systemic discrimination has been a part of Canada’s past. Women, racial and ethnic minorities as well as First Nations people have all faced discrimination in Canada. Policies such as, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial and federal Human Rights Codes, as well has various employment equity programs have been placed in Canada’s constitution to fight and address discrimination issues. Despite these key documents placed for universal rights and freedoms Aboriginal and other minority populations in Canada continue to be discriminated against. Many believe there is no discrimination in Canada, and suggest any lack of success of these groups is a result of personal decisions and not systemic discrimination. While others feel that the legislation and equality policies have yet resulted in an equal society for all minorities. Racism is immersed in Canadian society; this is clearly shown by stories of racial profiling in law enforcement.
There has always been controversy as to whether pat-downs and body scans should be used in airports to ensure passenger safety. In airports, the security should be allowed to use pat-downs and body scans. Using pat-downs and body scans at airports are beneficial if you have nothing to hide, determines threats better than looks, and prevents plane bombings; however, scanners also send a message that everyone is at terrorist risk, they emit radiation to people, and they violate right to privacy.
Maybe it was your lucky day at the airport; and you were selected for a body scan. It is just to detect if you are carrying anything illegal into the airport—right. However, according to Kurt Nimmo, the scanners are also collecting and storing images for law enforcement. The body scanner can store not only the body but also facial and iris. Nimmo reports about how the government is starting a $1 billion effort to gather the largest biometric data base (Nimmo, 2010). The government has been collecting biometrics in efforts to identify criminals and terrorist. According to Ellen Nakashima, employers that have sent in fingerprints of employees to scan for criminal background checks can even use the digital system. It can then keep a watch out and report any minor altercations with the law (Nakashima, 2007, par. 2). It is scary to think that there can be false positives in facial recognition. However, for protection of the greater good, I am sure it must report a suspect of a potential crime. This then puts a
Wrongful convictions in Canada is a very sensitive and disturbing topic that has created concerns as to why individuals are being wrongfully convicted. As people in Canada read about cases involving wrongful conviction, such as Guy Paul Morin, Rubin Carter and David Millguard, it often undermines their faith in the criminal justice system. Tunnel vision, the use of questionable DNA evidence, and eyewitness misidentification are the three main causes of wrongful convictions in Canada. Recognizing and addressing these concerns has led to a reduction in cases of wrongful convictions in Canada.
...ificant difference in the way law officials assists, serve, and protects the public. One advantageous forms of technology used within the criminal justice system has demonstrated to being quite an asset for many. The use of fingerprint technology have come quite a long way in the aid to solving many crimes that would otherwise gone unloved or resulted in more inconclusive outcomes. The Automated Fingerprint Identification System is swift and robust enough to obtain results in very little time. With the enormous quantity of fingerprinting information stored, it is probable that this system will prolong its use in the support of apprehending criminals, identifying family and relatives for a long time to come, and as technology is always advancing. There is no reason to believe that this system is bound to making our homes, streets communities a safer place for all.
The U.S. is the frontrunner to integrate biometrics into several aspects of security and, eventually, into everyday life for citizens. As of January 5, 2004, America has been using biometrics at its airports and seaports. All foreigners entering on visas will have their hands and faces digitally scanned.10 This will not affect American citizens but it may cause a problem for foreigners. By October 26th 2004, “all countries whose nationals can enter America without a visa—including western European countries, Japan and Australia—must begin issuing passports that contain biometric data too.”10 There are ongoing discussions in Europe to create a standard for passports that has many countries following suit.
Criminal profiling is a method that is used to investigate crimes by using validity and analysis of the crime and the criminal. In regards to the validity, benefits, and liabilities of criminal profiling Bartol & Bartol (2012) state that this is a method used to understand the individuals personality traits, behavioral tends, and the characteristics of an individual who commit the crimes. In regards to validity with criminal profiling is that there is room to make an error. As Bartol & Bartol (2012) mentions in the chapter there is a greater chance of an error depending on the key demographics of the subject they are trying to profile because it can cause a bias opinion when in fact the individual may not even be a race or gender based on what they have analyzed. Another aspect of validity which can be an issue would be the assumption or feeling that a specific type of personality or disorder played a role in the crime which is being analyzed. With this said it does not specifically mean that criminal profiling is at risk of not being a great tool but there are some risks that can lead the investigator down the wrong path to a dead end if not analyzed correctly without prejudice or bias opinion.
In my opinion, I believe that it should be optional to have your DNA stored in a database. I would have my DNA in a database to help scientists discover new medicines and what not. There would be one condition though, IF they were to use my DNA to successfully find a new drug or cure, I would want to be granted some money for that. Having DNA of just criminals though, is a whole new topic.
The question is should the United States of America require all of its citizens to submit DNA fingerprinting samples. Some citizens will say it is a good idea because it will make it easy to identify persons of interest. For example, the US Department of Defense maintains a database of over one million DNA samples for use in identifying the remains of armed forces members. (Johnson, 2004). Ethically DNA database usage could borderline invasion of privacy; examples of governments that tried to enforce such strict censuses on their citizens plague history and besmirch the concept of a DNA database at its core. Experts in the field of law argue over the use of genetic information as a means of surveillance with claims that DNA databases violate
Any attempt to enact a mandatory DNA database is illegal, as the current precedent for the forced collection of DNA clearly states that either consent, or a warrant is required. The Fourth amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
Should parents voluntarily create detailed identification records(including fingerprints) on their children in anticipation of possiblerunaway problems or abductions? (1) Yes. You can never tell when terriblethings will happen to a child, so its best to be prepared. (2)
...incorrect in a least some aspects, police will quickly lose faith in their worth. Additionally, severe criminal profiling can lead to implications towards some groups of the society as they will be labelled by the law enforcements such as the police.
With all the research put into improving it this will only improve. If we incorporate a certain pattern to go with the biometrics, then that is one more security measure being added. The individual would have a password in their head and a pattern that can only be done with something that they have on their body. This would mean the technology would scan something like their hand print, scan for their blood cells or pulse, and afterwards read a certain pattern that they set to confirm that it is them. We believe adding this pattern would be very simple to create and these patterns can be whatever anyone wants. Sure, biometrics already have keystroke patterns that have to do with your behavior (this is called keystroke dynamic), but what about a pattern that involves you tapping the scanner a certain way or with a certain set of fingers? This would not be too pricey considering it would just be a simple update instead of creating a completely new system. What biometrics would usually do is save key points of a pattern. All the system would need to do is save multiple key points in the order of that pattern. For example, they can first have an image of a whole hand along with the vascular patterns, then one of an index finger, then the middle, etc. The technological advancement of pre-existing systems and databases may not be perfect at first, but it can drastically change the
The increased presence of surveillance cameras is almost compared to George Orwell’s novel from 1984, where he imagined a future in which people would be monitored and controlled by the government. One question that needs to be asked is: do the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative side to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras, it should be seen as a valuable tool to help fight crime. As long as surveillance cameras are in public places and not in people's homes, privacy advocates should not be concerned. There are many benefits to having law enforcement security cameras, which people take for granted, and are quick to point out the negative.
...isition are high- especially where the protection of people and thus non-disavowal and irreversibility are concerned. It is conceivable to uproot the requirement for such disseminated databases through the watchful provision of biometric foundation without trading off security. The impacts of biometric innovation on pop culture and the dangers to security and danger to recognize will oblige intervention through enactment. For a significant part of the short history of biometrics the engineering advancements have been ahead of time of moral or legitimate ones. Watchful attention of the significance of biometrics information and how it ought to be lawfully ensured is currently needed on a more extensive scale.