Re: Fingerprinting annoyance

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Wed, 15 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 14 May 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 13 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote:

[...]

> > > First off, if you were born in the US, they have your feet and/or hand 
> > > prints on record.
> > 
> > Incorrect.
> > Several states do not bother to print infants at birth.
> > Several hospitals do not bother to follow state guidelines in those states
> > which do so require.
> 
> Which ones specifically?

Illinois doesn't much care.  Michigan had no requirement at all, some
hospitals did, some didn't bother to print infants at birth.  This was
usually to avoid baby switching and such and records were dumped later on.
Wisc. never much seemed to care until about 5 years ago when someone tried
to pass a law.  I don't think it ever passed, but I'm not sure.  There is
no standard consensus on this.

In Illinois it was estimated last year that 9% of births were outside of
hospitals.

Thousands if not millions of people have no prints on record.  How large
precisely do you think the FBI's national records are?  FBI + Local law
enforcement?  FBI + Local + administrative?

I'd be very surprised to find out it was larger than 100 million, or ~1/3
of the U.S. population (any number of which might be records of dead
people).

> > It is one of the great advantages of the United States that no
> > standardized procedure for person identification exists.  Seals and
> > certificates vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Cross the border to
> > a state and a hospital birth annoucement is enough for a drivers license,
> > cross again and 4 pieces and a note from mom isn't enough.
> > 
> > Be careful with disinformation please.
> > 
> 
> My point is not about the variance of seals and certificates (I have at 
> least 6 different ones prove it from 4 different states). That is a 
> given. It is that prints have been a generally accepted practice for some 
> time now. IF you want to make the case and go back to the early days 
> (pre-WWII), then people like attila and a few others don't have them - 
> and I'll concede the point on that basis.

Again, the point is that states can't decide if they want the task of
printing and sorting and collecting and storing such records.  It's not
cheap.  Even if it were, some states just don't care.

If you're trying to tell me that few if any unsolved cases involving
"unmatched" prints were committed by people younger than 55-60, I think
you might reconsider.  That's what your "everyone since WWII" statement
implies.  If that is so, why does the FBI maintain thousands of active
"waiting for print-person link" records for unsolved cases?

Either 1. - Not everyone born is printed or 2. - Hospitals who print don't
bother to submit to state or federal agencies because they (a) are not
required to (b) don't much care.

The answer is actually (3) all of the above.

> The information I received has come from inquiries to folks I know within 
> the AMA, several different hospital adminstration staff in various states 
> - whose job it is to handle such affairs, and few other people who make 
> it their business to know such trivia. IF the information is in error, 
> I'll gladly accept correct input. Next time, don't be so quick to accuse 
> without inquirying to context. I'm not J.Bell.

Again, even what the AMA says has little to do with state and individual
hospital practice.  Of the printing that goes on, most infant
identification is done for internal hospital records, and most involves
ONLY foot prints.

> ...Paul
> 

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com