Fingerprinting kids, yay or nay?

What is your opinion on parents having kids fingerprinted and the prints are on file and in the system?

I'm against it...really, WHAT is a good argument for it? First, people were saying it's incase your kid is kidnapped and you need to identify the body. Well if it's common knowledge so many kids ARE being fingerprinted for that purpose, what's going to stop the kidnapper from cutting off the hands and disposing of them so an ID can't be made?

So NOW the argument people are using is 'it's incase when your kid grows up he ever breaks the law'. Gee, that's telling your kids that you love them, isn't it? 'Oh yes we love you, this is just incase you become a criminal in 10 years and the police need to take you to jail'.

Most people don't need to get their prints in the system until they're arrested or their job calls for it, and I don't see any reason why Big Brother should know what your kids' prints look like until either situation comes up. Now personally, if I had kids and was for printing them, I'd do it myself and keep the prints locked up where only I knew where they were.

What's everybody else think?

I had my finger prints marked when I was around 4 or 5 years old at school and it didn't bother me at all and still doesn't. I don't see what it hurts, it can only help if a child is abducted. To say that it would prompt kidnappers to cut off the kids hands is reaching. I don't see it as a big deal, it's just another form of id.

I see nothing wrong with it. Like FightSleep said, it's just another means of identification. Can't hurt.

Well then what about if next they want to take DNA from kids to put on file for whatever the hell reason. Is everybody going to be jumping on that bandwagon too since 'it's just another means of identification'? And what about this talk about making it so people can be identified by eye scans, where is the line drawn? Some people might think it's good for safe precautions but I gotta wonder why the hell Big Brother wants to know so badly who we all are before it's ever necessary.


And in response that a kidnapper who's already killed his victim might cut off the hands to avoid ID is reaching...people don't want child rapes to warrant the death penalty for the same reason, because if the rapist is going to die anyway, he's got nothing to lose by murdering the kid. Now people can argue about it till the cows come home and there will still never be a definitive answer, but you have to wonder.

I don't see the need for it. For children? Nah. I've been bonded 3 times and they all were for job purposes. If they are hellbent on having prints for a child, then take the footprints that they have on their birth certificates and keep them on file, if they don't already. Footprints are just as good as fingerprints.

I do feel the benefits of it are a bit overrated. If they are kidnapped and maybe they need to see if the kid's been anywhere, I guess I could see the benefits to it. But at the same time, I don't really see it as a problem either. It's kind of a preference issues to me. Don't really feel strongly either way.

I voted yes, before I read your initial post. Here, the fingerprinting done for children's' safety purposes is done in conjunction with a photo. Then it is for the parents to keep in case of abduction. I have never taken part (or heard of) an situation where it is done and somebody else keeps the prints or the pics.

I guess no matter, I am for it. Making a positive ID match for kids is different than for adults. Many children do not have adequate dental records for it. So, I think it is a good idea.