
The NYPD kept an illegal database of juvenile fingerprints for years - jbegley
https://theintercept.com/2019/11/13/nypd-juvenile-illegal-fingerprint-database/
======
kiliantics
This tweet has been doing the rounds the last couple days too:

[https://twitter.com/StretchArmy/status/1193925862569193472](https://twitter.com/StretchArmy/status/1193925862569193472)

There honestly seems to be no actual value in maintaining the NYPD force, only
cost after cost. It was even demonstrated pretty clearly that they were
unnecessary when they went on strike and the city kept going just fine. Why do
we give these bullies so much power at such cost when we get nothing in
return?

~~~
wpasc
Are you arguing that the NYPD in its entirety adds no value to quality of life
in NYC?

New York city has been home to organized crime in the form of the mafia and
gangs, boasted a huge murder rate in the middle of the 20th century, and is
the frequent target of terror threats (literally the stated target of terror
groups in their own words). Yet, the NYPD adds no value?

~~~
sjg007
In 2017 when the NYPD reduced proactive policing the number of major crime
reports dropped as well. That suggests that it is the NYPD that is creating
"major" crime issues out of molehills.

~~~
candiodari
This is a recurring story. Crime goes up and down with the economy. Bad
economy? More crime. Great economy? Less crime. And yet everytime we're 5
years or so in a boom "prevention" becomes "important", and of course the
lesser offences (like small drug offences) become important. Exactly when
crime is close to the lowest level it'll be that decade.

This is very hard to explain, except of course when seen in the lens of "we
must provide jobs for government workers".

The same is true for things like juvenile justice. More kids than ever locked
up. And yet ... less abuse than ever, less youth crime than ever before.

What these systems are for, I don't know. But their numbers make it pretty
clear what they're _not_ for. They're not for protecting anyone in society.

------
turc1656
So...as I usually ask when these sorts of things pop up - who's going to jail?

Probably no one, like usual. And the NYPD has the audacity to complain about
the way the general public perceives them.

~~~
throwaway35784
Bullying is an epidemic in our society -- all the way to the very top of our
political institution.

People don't speak out because of the fear of repercussions. I spoke out. I
was fired. My wages withheld. I was subsequently falsely reported to the
police for criminal behavior by the corporate attorney, which is against their
code of ethics -- or he lied about doing so, either way it's an ethics
violation with at worst a slap on the wrist. When I reported the corporate
fraud to that attorney he said he wasn't reading my emails.

I said, "you know. I told you. You are complicit." He refuses to respond.

I don't know where to go now.

Corporate immunity. No one is held to account.

------
ebg13
> _When lawyers representing some of those youths discovered the violation,
> the police department dragged its feet, at first denying but eventually
> admitting that it was retaining prints it was supposed to have destroyed._

> _To date, the department has made no public admission of wrongdoing, nor has
> it notified the thousands of people it impacted_

How many cops are bastards? Every day the answer sure seems to be all of them.

~~~
flattone
Seems like they have to be. How else can a person choose a role of potentially
violent arbitrarily given authority over all others.

------
pterois
NYPD - Smart phones & who else?

------
ncmncm
So everybody who knew about it and didn't do anything is a criminal.

Take their fingerprints, at least.

~~~
Spare_account
Presumably it should be fingerprints and DNA into the database, plus publish
their arrest records in the local newspaper

------
harumph
Remember always: The US Supreme Court found that police in the United States
have no obligation whatsoever to help. Anyone. Ever.

The police are a criminal organization and should be treated as such.

~~~
freeflight
Not being from the US that sounds rather crazy, but apparently there's some
[0] truth [1] to this statement?

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-
po...](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-
not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)

~~~
iudqnolq
It's not completely unreasonable. Here's a quote from Warren v. District Of
Columbia

> A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service
> provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety
> and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the
> community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and
> upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of
> those resources. The public, through its representative officials, recruits,
> trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner
> in which personnel are deployed.

> At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the
> personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and
> interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs
> have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the
> public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a
> municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police
> services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to
> individual members of the community.

Australia [0] and England [1] are roughly similar (the only countries I
googled; I don't have time to google more but I'd guess almost all countries
are legally or practically the same).

In general in the US the courts are reluctant to second-guess police officers
for decisions they might make in the moment. See also the controversial
doctrine of qualified immunity that makes it much more difficult to prosecute
police misconduct by saying if officers didn't know from a prior case that the
_exact specific thing_ they were about to do was illegal they can't be
prosecuted. [2]

> Essentially, if you want to sue a police officer who you think violated your
> constitutional rights, you first have to convince the court that what
> happened to you was so outrageous that no reasonable person could have
> thought it was okay.

For example, according to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit it wasn't
clear in 2001 that the govt's "enhanced interrogation" of US citizens,
including the following, was torture [3]

> Denial of medical care for serious and potentially life-threatening
> ailments, including chest pain and difficulty breathing, as well as for
> treatment of the chronic, extreme pain caused by being forced to endure
> stress positions, resulting in severe and continuing mental and physical
> harm, pain, and profound disruption of the senses and personality.

[0]: [https://www.robinsongill.com.au/resource/opening-the-door-
on...](https://www.robinsongill.com.au/resource/opening-the-door-on-polices-
duty-of-care/)

[1]:
[http://www.lawjournals.org/download/76/2-6-32-594.pdf&sa=U&v...](http://www.lawjournals.org/download/76/2-6-32-594.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjrmNmn2ujlAhVxpVkKHWFYDvwQFjADegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2DUCAK-d9q8JCc7K5eU5sM)

[2]: [https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-
poli...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-
practices/supreme-court-gives-police-green-light-shoot)

[3] [https://loweringthebar.net/2012/05/would-the-last-civil-
righ...](https://loweringthebar.net/2012/05/would-the-last-civil-right.html)
(this is a legal humor site, but it's by a lawyer and you can easily find a
better source by googling if you want to be a spoilsport)

------
sasasassy
Jesus Christ people. Let's be honest here, the NYPD kept some data, we don't
even know how large, about probable criminals. Further it used some detective
work to guess who belongs to gangs. These don't look like big crimes to
humanity.

I'd be much more worried about, you know, children under 14 committing crimes
already.

The lunacy of some of these commenters...

~~~
Aloha
We're a nation of laws, our entire culture and system is built around rule of
law. These protections exist for a reason, to protect _children_ who are not
done developing mentally, from having their acts from following them around
for life.

Rule of Law cuts both ways though, we don't get to just ignore laws we don't
like, and the powers that be even more so cannot. If the law itself is a
problem, you _change_ the law.

~~~
sasasassy
Sure, it sucks, and the bureaucracy that is the NYPD probably means records
are kept from longer than they should, and that is bad. But still, the kids
data will not be used against them later on, i.e. crimes they commit at that
time won't be prosecuted. Their data only helps arrest them if they actually
commit a crime, so they would be the ones breaking the rule of law.

~~~
magduf
If you think the law is bad, then you should work with the government to get
the law changed. Otherwise, you need to follow the law.

At least, that's what the police will tell you when you break the law. So why
should they get a pass? It doesn't matter if the law actually isn't useful or
is causing harm; the police are more bound to follow and enforce it than
anyone else. So why are you making excuses for them?

~~~
lmm
I would make excuses for anyone who violated the law while acting with good
intentions. The rule of law is important. But so is having a sense of
proportion about illegality.

------
papreclip
>Several years ago, Bella and Lisa Freeman, director of special litigation and
law reform at Legal Aid’s Juvenile Rights Practice, started to notice that
some of their clients had old police contacts showing up in their rap sheets
that should not have been there

The whole reason this was uncovered was that many of these kids are
recidivists, maybe the law is wrong

>the NYPD also maintains a secretive and controversial “gang database,” which
labels thousands of unsuspecting New Yorkers — almost all black or Latino
youth — as “gang members” based on a set of broad and arbitrary criteria

What is a gang database supposed to be based on? Gangs don't keep a signed and
dated registry of their membership.

>My son was fingerprinted. He’s 14. I’m scared. What does this mean for his
future

Means he should wear gloves the next time he commits a crime!

~~~
Red_Leaves_Flyy
>What is a gang database supposed to be based on? Gangs don't keep a signed
and dated registry of their membership.

Investigative police work, undercover officers, corroborated witness
testimony. Iow, hard evidence, with accountability and restitution when they
get it wrong. if a cop goes off the books they, and everyone with knowledge of
said acts, should automatically lose all protection from civil claims. Great
power, etc.

When the nypd gets it wrong innocent people die, go to prison, become pariahs
and have no recourse against a notoriously violent, racist, and corrupt
organization. The nypds rap sheet basically proves they're a gang muscling out
the competition instead of actually fighting crime. Their lack of
accountability, and refusal to actually purge the bad actors, only fuels the
hate for them.

