'Shopping centre jails' and widespread DNA testing planned

[MacOSXMan]

'Shopping centre jails' and widespread DNA testing planned

MATTHEW HICKLEY

UK Daily Mail

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Shoplifters, people whose dogs foul the pavement, litter droppers, speeding drivers and those caught not wearing a seat belt could be fingerprinted or forced to give DNA under new Home Office proposals.

Further suggestions, aimed at easing the burden on police, include locking up drunks and vandals in short-term cell blocks in shopping centres and high streets.

The Home Office hopes a network of hundreds of new mini detention facilities could save frontline officers hours they currently spend escorting 'minor' offenders to police station custody suites and checking their identities, only to let them go with a fine or a caution.

Instead those arrested for straightforward and less serious offences could be held for up to four hours in a high street cell block until their identity is confirmed, freeing up officers to go back out on patrol.

But concerns were raised last night as hundreds of real police stations have closed in recent years and officers are under growing pressure to dispense instant justice instead of putting criminals before the courts.

Critics warned that temporary cell-blocks and fines could increasingly become a cheap substitute for charging and prosecuting serious offenders.

The proposals were published as part of Home Office plans for a major shake up of police powers, reforming the 20-year-old Police and Criminal Evidence Act which governs the way officers fight crime.

The paper claims most arrested suspects spend less than four hours in custody, often because officers suspect they are lying about their name and address.

Officers can then spend much of their shift filling in forms in a custody suite and checking an offender's identity - simply to be able to issue them with a caution or fine.

The new short-term holding facility located in shopping centres or town centres would feature basic cells which could be smaller than standard police station cells.

Suspects would be rapidly processed with their identities checked and fingerprints and DNA samples taken, and then released with an instant fine, or a court summons sent later by post.

Suspects in more serious cases which needed investigating would be transferred to a real police station.

Almost 900 police stations have closed in England and Wales over the past 14 years, with many more no longer open around the clock.

Concerns were highlighted in December when businessman Stephen Langford was beaten to death outside a police in Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, which was closed to the public even though there were officers inside.

Forces are increasingly putting neighbourhood patrol officers in council buildings, community centres and even supermarkets in a bid to foster closer links with communities.

Meanwhile soaring numbers of crimes are being diverted into the instant justice system, with more offenders receiving cautions or instant fines, prompting warnings that quite serious criminals are getting away with the equivalent of a parking fine.

Most controversially police are urged to hand out ?80 fines to shoplifters who steal goods up to a value of ?200, and the crime is counted in official figures as being solved.

The number of fixed penalty fines give out by police more than doubled last year to 146,000.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "Whilst we support moves which allow police officers to process arrests quicker and spend more time on the beat, these facilities must not be an excuse to abandon proper procedure.

"Labour need to realise that you cannot short-circuit justice. Offenders must be properly prosecuted and punished, not effectively let off with a parking ticket."

The document also sets out proposals to allow police to carry on questioning criminal suspects after they have been charged with an offence - overturning a long-standing principle of British justice.

The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith opened a rift within the Government before Christmas by backing such a move - proposed by the Conservatives - as an alternative to controversial plans to let police lock up terror suspects for 90 days without charge.

The stance put the Government's senior law officer at odds with Tony Blair, who still wants to see the 90 day powers introduced despite the measure being thrown out by the Commons.

[Deathray]

I hope this is a joke, i automatically felt like it was some made up story based on 1984...

uhh... yeah :|

[Allan]

"hey, kids, c'mon we're going to the mall to get you new shoes."

"Moooooooooooom ... can we point at the people int he jails and laugh at them pleaaaaaaaaaase?"

"Sure. We'll do that while we eat lunch and tease them with the food."

"YEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah!"

[primexx]

This has got to be a joke.

Minor offences like this:

"Shoplifters, people whose dogs foul the pavement, litter droppers, speeding drivers and those caught not wearing a seat belt"

Getting fingerprinted and DNA samples taken is a grave violation of Human Rights (not that the UK hasnt already violated it countless times). Without such basic protections of society the government would be able to do whatever they want without checks and balances whatsoever. It will be - very real - Big Brother's world.

"straightforward and less serious offences could be held for up to four hours in a high street cell block"

Without oversight the police could detain many people, not merely those who have committed an offence, and nobody would even know.

"Most controversially police are urged to hand out ?80 fines to shoplifters who steal goods up to a value of ?200, and the crime is counted in official figures as being solved."

Fine someone just like that? No proof, no nothing, just a fine. Can it be disputed?

"allow police to carry on questioning criminal suspects after they have been charged with an offence."

Please tell me this is a joke. Please! Depriving the accused his/her right to counsel is simply outrageous. Is this what humanity has come to? Closing the doors of justice to those individuals who are unfortunate enough to know little of their rights? Removing the very principle that upholds a just society? What is the justice system without justice?

I fear for the future of humanity.

PS: wtf is "Home Office"?!?!

[Andareed]

Getting fingerprinted and DNA samples taken is a grave violation of Human Rights (not that the UK hasnt already violated it countless times).

Why would this be a human rights violation? I agree that fingerprinting/taking DNA of people on mass may not be good, but I don't think it constitutes a human rights violation.

"straightforward and less serious offences could be held for up to four hours in a high street cell block"

Without oversight the police could detain many people, not merely those who have committed an offence, and nobody would even know.

Police can already hold a person for a certain amount of time without charging them. If the police really want to detain people without cause, they already can.

"Most controversially police are urged to hand out ?80 fines to shoplifters who steal goods up to a value of ?200, and the crime is counted in official figures as being solved."

Fine someone just like that? No proof, no nothing, just a fine. Can it be disputed?

If an officer stops you for running a red light and gives you a ticket, there's little proof that an offense was committed.

"allow police to carry on questioning criminal suspects after they have been charged with an offence."

Please tell me this is a joke. Please! Depriving the accused his/her right to counsel is simply outrageous. Is this what humanity has come to? Closing the doors of justice to those individuals who are unfortunate enough to know little of their rights? Removing the very principle that upholds a just society? What is the justice system without justice?

Where does it say that the accused can't have access to a lawyer? I would assume that police can question a suspect after they have been charged already (albeit likely with a lawyer present).

[primexx]

Why would this be a human rights violation? I agree that fingerprinting/taking DNA of people on mass may not be good, but I don't think it constitutes a human rights violation.

Police can already hold a person for a certain amount of time without charging them. If the police really want to detain people without cause, they already can.

If an officer stops you for running a red light and gives you a ticket, there's little proof that an offense was committed.

Where does it say that the accused can't have access to a lawyer? I would assume that police can question a suspect after they have been charged already (albeit likely with a lawyer present).

1) It's a violation of your right to privacy.

2) Yes that is true, but the difference here is that in the police station there are witnesses, whereas any box along the street presumably doesnt have any or as much. This is less of a legal distinction than a practical one.

3) Traffic fines are disputable. If these fines are too, then it's similar to what's happening already anyways. Although the article doesnt say if it is so we'll just leave it at that.

4) The right to counsel is not just to obtain & instruct a lawyer, it's to do so in a timely manner and before either that's done or the accused chooses not to obtain & instruct counsel, the police cannot question said accused. Therefore to proceed in questioning as soon as he is charged is a denial of the accused person's right to counsel.

[NightmarE D]

1984

Do I really need to say anymore than that?

[Andareed]

1) It's a violation of your right to privacy.

2) Yes that is true, but the difference here is that in the police station there are witnesses, whereas any box along the street presumably doesnt have any or as much. This is less of a legal distinction than a practical one.

3) Traffic fines are disputable. If these fines are too, then it's similar to what's happening already anyways. Although the article doesnt say if it is so we'll just leave it at that.

4) The right to counsel is not just to obtain & instruct a lawyer, it's to do so in a timely manner and before either that's done or the accused chooses not to obtain & instruct counsel, the police cannot question said accused. Therefore to proceed in questioning as soon as he is charged is a denial of the accused person's right to counsel.

Submitting financial information to the government for collection of taxes is a gross violation of privacy, but I wouldn't recommend not filing a return. It's a violation of my privacy for the police to enter my house, even if they have a warrant. I would not consider either of these examples to violate basic human rights. I do not like the idea of forcing people to provide fingerprints or DNA samples for minor infractions, but I think that claiming that this violates basic human rights is a bit over-the-top.

I assume that if the police want to question you in this situation, you can refuse and request to have a lawyer. If they charge you they tell you that you have the right to an attorney (at least in North America).

[leesmithg]

If you think it's a joke, then you're wrong it's happening already.

In Britain we have 20% of the worlds cctv, we have more prisoners than any other country in western europe, we are top of the crime league.

British jails are full, they are using Police sation holding jails to keep people.

You get jailed, you get 3 square meals, warm bed, internet access, play station, big tv, DvD player, radio, money, phone cards and a single cell.

So you might as well treat your criminality like this.

Get caught not a problem, treat it like a holiday.

[Laurë Veteran]

@primexx : the Home Office is a department of the UK government. It is typically known as one big joke that is not "fit for purpose".

Home Office

I like the fact that there are no white people on their front page! There should be white and Asian and black, but you can see what this tells you about the priorities of our government.

Anyway.....

I love the ideal of a national DNA database. Rapists and other criminals could be caught straight away. How good would that be?

BUT

our government is run by imbeciles who couldn't organise a ****-up in a brewery.

(I think this is the inherant nature of most civil servants who would get sacked from a job in a business for their incompetence and lack of ambition)

The information would not be kept safe or accurate. Innocent people would get arrested mistakenly and we would all have to live with that hanging over us.

And DNA is not actually 100% fool proof.

The potential for abuse of such a database is scary.