Why isn't everyone fingerprinted at birth?

Comments

• So do I, but I'm also one of the few who volunteered to have my DNA in the state database. It's used for training or elimination (if I contaminate evidence accidentally). You'd be surprised how many of my co-workers refused! :)

  • Report
  

  by Teri00 on July 20th, 2007

• I'm a trained teacher, and I would not be against having my DNA and fingerprints taken before being hired. I think it is important these days, for your own safety, not only for the safety of others.

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on July 21st, 2007

• I agree... and if you're not going to do anything wrong, what's the harm? ;)

  • Report
  

  by Teri00 on July 25th, 2007

Comments

• Probably because the babies don't scrunch up their feet like they do their hands. It's easier. :)

  • Report
  

  by Teri00 on November 15th, 2007

• Hmmmm......that makes sense. Thanx Teri. ;)

  • Report
  

  by AnaContessa on October 6th, 2008

Comments

• Funny. :) If that was true, we wouldn't do footprints. I'll give you a point though, for contributing and being new. :)

  • Report
  

  by Teri00 on August 8th, 2007

Comments

• surely they could compare the prints with the prints of the person and see that a mistake has been made.

  • Report
  

  by Seraphim Shinobi on August 8th, 2007

• Everyone believes the word of the computer as law these days, especially the authorities.

  • Report
  

  by smart9426 on August 8th, 2007

• people should have paid more attention to those sci fi films lol

  • Report
  

  by Seraphim Shinobi on August 8th, 2007

• obviously you are unaware that computers can not mess up. they are programs and only do what the programs tell it to do. the real problem is with HUMANS; human error. everything else in the world is true. you can't fake history. if your prints are so-called "switched" with these murderous villains, there would obviously be a way to prove that your prints were switched in the database. When they bring you in after being arrested they take your CURRENT prints and run them against the ones at the scene. So you're not going to go to jail based on any fingerprints...

  • Report
  

  by emilycaitlinreese on November 11th, 2010

Comments

Comments

• yes they are they become fully developed in the womb. in fact babies have fingerprints before most women even know they are pregnant.

  • Report
  

  by Renee_R2045 on April 22nd, 2011

Comments

Comments

• Even if they wanted to harrass the court, they couldn't convey to their parents that. LOL, I think you meant parents suing. That's why a bill would be passed first. If not, the parent could voluntarily consent to getting their babies' fingerprints recorded.

  • Report
  

  by Running, Fall Up on July 17th, 2007

Comments

Comments

• May you please back that up with a source?

  • Report
  

  by Running, Fall Up on July 17th, 2007

• Actually, it's a joke. Or at least I hope it is.

  • Report
  

  by inconsequential on July 17th, 2007

• You're the same Todd from Uncyclopedia are you? How'd you find Answerbag? What are you doing here? =)

  • Report
  

  by Running, Fall Up on July 17th, 2007

• N/m, got your answer elsewhere on the site. :)

  • Report
  

  by Running, Fall Up on July 17th, 2007

Comments

• very much untrue but +4 for thinking....your fingerprint and the size of your eyes never change through yourlife...just FYI

  • Report
  

  by anonymous on July 17th, 2007

• Thanks for the info. Never would have thought that about the fingerprints. I knew about the eyes, though. So you're telling me that my tiny little baby fingers had a print as my big old turd tongs? Just don't seem right.

  • Report
  

  by rdrainer on July 17th, 2007

• yep just more stretched out....;)

  • Report
  

  by anonymous on July 17th, 2007

• But I did find this that gives your statement a hitch in its getalong:
  .
  http://www.metrokc.gov/sheriff/partners/regional_afis/fingerprinting.aspx
  . says:
  Fingerprints are formed before birth, and while they grow larger throughout a person’s life, their basic structure remains constant. They can be temporarily obscured when the skin is damaged, but once healed, the ridges grow back in the exact same pattern. Even when a fingerprint is permanently scarred, there is almost always sufficient detail around the scar to allow a positive identification.
  .
  Also:
  Fingerprints vs. DNA
  ... fingerprints are formed in the womb, and movements and natural growth randomly create some characteristics.
  .
  (more later)

  • Report
  

  by rdrainer on July 17th, 2007

• or not.

  • Report
  

  by rdrainer on July 17th, 2007

• Hitch as in strengthens?? Because it says exactly what i told ya...;)

  • Report
  

  by anonymous on July 17th, 2007

• yes, it does, but I started writing before you posted, and I didn't see yours because I was focusing on the phrase "movements and natural growth randomly create some characteristics", which allows fingerprints to be admissible to discern between twins who may have identical fingerprints while in the womb. That might be a hitch, but it wasn't a consideration in the Daubert decision that could have potentially derailed fingerprinting's claim to legitimacy.

  • Report
  

  by rdrainer on July 17th, 2007

• I'm leaning away from the biomechanics of fingerprinting toward the sociological issues. See the other post I put up about the stink that child fingerprinting is causing in UK. It has much about falsely accusing children. Tell me what you think, please.

  • Report
  

  by rdrainer on July 17th, 2007

• No fingerprints are formed quite early in the womb.

  • Report
  

  by singwell-is off researching a lot on July 17th, 2007

• Kings County Sheriffs Office document says they are. I haven't been there so I don't know personally.

  • Report
  

  by rdrainer on July 17th, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments