DIVIDED OPINIONS ON FINGERPRINT CLAUSE IN POLICE FORCE BILL

Evening Star, Issue 26184, 20 August 1947, Page 6

DIVIDED OPINIONS ON FINGERPRINT CLAUSE IN POLICE FORCE BILL

(Special.) WELLINGTON, August 20. Whether the police .should have the right to take fingerprints of any person lawfully arrested, but before conviction, was discussed in the House of Representatives yesterday when the Police Force Bill was further considered in committee. Mr F. Langstone (Govt., Jloskill) said lie did not think it right that a person should have his fingerprints taken just because he was in custody. He urged the Prime Minister, who was in charge of the Bill, to withdraw the clause. Mr Langstone said he realised that New Zealand had a very good police force, but the authority proposed was too great and he wanted to protect the liberty of the subject. Mr W. S. Goosman (Nat., Piako) said, that for once he agreed with Mr Langstone. When a person was arrested for the first time it was a hard and trying experience. There might be circumstances when it was desirable to take fingerprints, but this should only be done on the authority of a magistrate. the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, pointed out that the clause under discussion only provided that prints could be taken in a police station, instead of a gaol. While he hoped lie would never be accused of supporting the doctrine of the infallibility of the police, lie believed that the great majority could be relied upon to show consideration, but lie would look into the clause again in view of what had been said. Mr J. R. Hanan (Nat., Invercargill) pointed out that fingerprints could be taken in a case of a relatively minor character, and he suggested that, in order to relieve such persons as mere inebriates of the indignity of fingerprinting, this power be limited to cases involving dishonesty or violence. Mr G. H. Ormond Wilson (Govt., Palmerston North) took strong exception to the suggestion made in an earlier debate that everyone’s fingerprints should be taken. Once that was accepted, he said, it would be easy for Parliament to give permission to the police to use all these records. It was the beginning of a system which could become highly dangerous. The Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Parry, said he saw no objection to everyone getting fingerprints taken. Mr Langstone: You would have a revolution. 3ELEBRATED CASE RECALLED. The Prime Minister, explaining the value of the fingerprint system, said that in the Ponsonby Post Office murder the guilty person was discovered by fingerprints found at the scene of the crime. They coincided with those of a man whose fingerprints had been, taken in a comparatively minor ease of desertion from the Army. -No normal person would refuse to do anything which would assist in the detection of crime, and he believed the police could be trusted to use discretion and decency. Mr Langstone: Criminals don’t get their fingerprints taken—tljey use gloves. _He added that he had a great detestation of making it easy for the police in some future investigation or in the investigation of some other case by fingerprinting some fellow-citizen when he happened to be arrested. Mr C. G. E. Harker (Nat., Hawke’s Bay) said that more innocent men had been saved and more guilty men had been convicted through the use of fingerprints. Mr Ormond Wilson said the universal taking of fingerprints would be the first step on the downward path to totalitarianism. The clause was allowed to stand unaltered and the Bill was passed.