By Earl Moxam, Senior Gleaner WriterON TUESDAY, September 24, 1946, a Bill entitled 'A Law to Amend the Finger Prints Law', was tabled in the House of Representatives, having been sent down from the Upper House.
It was two months later, on Thursday, November 14, 1946, that Finance Minister Harold Allan led off in the debate on the merits of enacting the legislation.
The Bill, he explained, sought to "give permission that a person in custody may have his fingerprints taken if he so desires" and set out who would have the authority to take the fingerprints.
The object of the measure, he said, was "to detect a person who is suspected, to find out if he was involved"; pointing out that, under existing regulations, fingerprints could not be taken unless the person being targeted was a habitual criminal, which, according to him, defeated the objective of the law.
Minister for Social Welfare, Frank Pixley, in supporting the Bill, complained that the fact that fingerprints could only be taken with the authority of the Court was a hindrance, given the 'considerable delays' that this occasioned. He contended that such delays were especially unfair when the person involved was innocent. Edward Fagan, JLP Member for Eastern St. Andrew, immediately raised concern about a provision in the Bill which would authorise the taking of fingerprints before the person is actually convicted of a crime. Pointing to the United States and other countries, he claimed that in these jurisdictions no fingerprint was taken of anyone who was not actually convicted.
Alexander Bustamante was blunt in his rejection of the proposal: "The matter of having fingerprints taken before a person is convicted is one I shall never be in accord with!"
To which Mr. Fagan cheered, "Hear, hear!"
CRIMINAL
Continuing, Mr. Bustamante said he had asked himself the question several times: "If I or you were arrested today on a charge for which we were not responsible why should any man take my fingerprints until I have been tried and found guilty and become a criminal?"
Clifford Campbell also registered his opposition to the Bill, arguing that there was no necessity for it. "To have innocent people's fingerprints taken merely because they are in jail is stretching the matter too far," he argued.
Parliament, he said, would be "really striking at citizenship and if we were to sit here and allow that thing to go through, we would be wanting in our duty. It looks harmless; it looks as if nothing is in it, but there is much at stake so far as we as citizens are concerned."
The PNP's F.L.B. Evans, from Eastern Westmoreland, asserted that only criminals should be subjected to fingerprinting. "It is a traditional thing in this country to do everything to destroy the masses," he complained.
John Henry, JLP member for Western St. Catherine, joined the chorus of opposition to the Bill, asserting that no one should be fingerprinted unless convicted of a crime.
But E.R.D. Evans stood solidly in support of the Bill, arguing that his colleagues were approaching the matter "from the wrong angle."
PROGRESSIVE COUNTRY
It was wrong, he said, to assume that a person is a criminal once he is fingerprinted. To the contrary, he said, "in every progressive country of the world today the fingerprint is being used as a means of identification because it is a known thing in Finger Print Science that no two fingerprints are alike in this world." Furthermore, he pointed out,
anyone wanting to travel to the United States had to be fingerprinted, a fact of life, which he said people did not object to.
Regarding the "poor masses", he pointed out that, unlike parliamentarians, they were not well known and were often arrested in a country district and would be held in custody for up to two weeks "before a magistrate comes along and releases him because he is not the criminal that is wanted."
On the other hand, he argued, "if the man's fingerprints could be taken he would be released forthwith. "My strength of view... would weigh more solidly on the side of the masses. We would like to protect the type of man who would be locked up for two weeks because of lack of identification," he said.
Despite the strong supporting arguments posited by E.R.D. Evans, the mover of the Bill, Harold Allan, announced that he did not propose "to thrust this or any other Bill upon a House that is against its principles."
Notwithstanding that, he suggested that those opposed to the measure sincerely misunderstood what was proposed in the legislation. "People are being fingerprinted now and you will cause more suffering to them if this amendment does not go through, because the law, as it stands, will keep an honest man in custody until a judge comes to give the order for him to be fingerprinted, which may be a week hence," he warned.
Such arguments were to no avail, however, as when the bill was put to the vote it was defeated eight votes to three. Those voting in favour were Harold Allan, E.R.D. Evans, and Frank Pixley. The dissenting votes came from Alexander Bustamante, Clifford Campbell, B.B. Coke, F.L.B. Evans, Edward Fagan, John Henry, Leslie Rose, and Lester Simmonds. Accordingly the Bill was thrown out at second reading.
