Use Of Finger-Print System

Northern Advocate, 16 August 1947, Page 4

Use Of FingerPrint System

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Replying to the debate on the second reading of the Police Force Bill in the House of Representatives yesterday, the Minister in charge of the Police Department (Mr Fraser) said instances could be given of the extent to which the force would be decimated, particularly as to senior officers, if the retiring age were lowered at present. The problem arose in the force, as elsewhere, of how to continue to find useful employment for persons of advanced years who still retained their working capacity, and at the same time offer reasonable opportunities for promotion to younger men and women. They could not allow a situation to develop in which the young people of i the country would have to carry on increasing number of elderly people on their backs. ROGUES’ GALLERY Mr F. Langstone (G—Roskill) said he did not like the clause which provided that when a person was held in lawful custody the police could take his fingerprints and any other particulars.

Mr M. H. Oram (O—Manawatu) said if a person was held in lawful custody there was no reason why his fingerprints should not be taken. There should be no more objection to the taking of fingerprints than to the taking of a statement or a person’s address. The more facilities there were the more it would help the police to detect crimes.

Mr Parry, Minister of Internal Affairs: Why not make is more general? Opposition Voice: Compulsory? Mr Oram: I would support that wholeheartedly. Mr Bodkin: Why not have our photographs published in the rogues’ gallery? Mr Fraser said the relevant clause provided only that to save time fingerprints might be taken in the police station instead of in the lock-up. This saving of time might be vital in serious cases, and, as the police were charged not only with the prevention of crime but with the detection of criminals, it was reasonable to provide thte police with every possible facility^. MANY WILL OBJECT He did not know if any persons had escaped conviction as the result of the present system, but the police felt they were handicapped. Mr Fraser said many persons would 1 resent the compulsory taking of fingerprints. Many citizens had a fear of official places and functions and would suffer anguish and worry if the taking of fingerprints were obligatory. If, however, the taking of fingerprints were voluntary it was possible that most people would offer their fingerprints out of fear of suspicion j which might arise if they neglected to Ido so. However, the present bill made ino such provision. The bill< was reported back from committee with several clauses still to be discussed and others held over for further consideration.

Before the House adjourned Mr Fraser said discussion of the bill could be resumed next Tuesday, when an Imprest Supply Bill would probably be introduced.