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