THE CASE AGAINST MASS FINGERPRINTING



Some policies may have good intentions but still be wrong-headed.  They may stem
from mistaken beliefs about the reasons for and nature of a social problem,
and their implementation may do much more harm than good.
The fingerprint and background check requirement is one of these policies.




Steven E. Barkan, professor and criminologist

University of Maine



There are two categories of argument against mass fingerprinting.  One concerns the practical 
side involving the relative cost and effectiveness of mass fingerprinting as a way to prevent 
child abuse, especially in times of over-stressed public resources and when there are perhaps 
better ways to the same end (see "Positive Alternative Solutions").  The second involves 
questions of historical principle, specifically the value of  traditional American civil liberties as 
embodied both constitutionally, in the Bill of Rights, and in longstanding, accepted customs such 
as the presumption of innocence.




THE  PRACTICAL  ARGUMENT



All good problem-solving depends upon an accurate definition of the problem.  Supporters of 
mass fingerprinting of school personnel have on occasion made it sound as if there were an 
epidemic of child abuse by school employees with prior convictions for pedophilia.  The data, 
not provided when the law was passed in 1997, suggest quite otherwise:


1) According to their most recent available data (2000), U.S. Dept. of 
Health/Human Services states that, of 8,114 perpetrators of child abuse in Maine that year, 
only 71—or 0.875%—were in the undifferentiated category of “other perpetrators,” which includes 
school personnel, but also friends, neighbors and anyone else who doesn’t fall into the specific
 categories of family and relatives, residential facility and daycare staff.  Of these 71, 
typically just over one third involve sexual abuse, reducing Maine’s “other perpetrators” 
category to about 27 individuals—or 0.33% of all Maine abusers—when it comes to identifying 
pedophiles. While the category is not broken down any further, it is clear to anyone following 
the news that school personnel are involved in only one or two or three incidents a year at
 most, thus reducing the percentage figure again—to less than 0.1%.  When one further takes 
into account that more often these few are first-time offenders, and that the remaining rare 
perpetrator with a criminal record even more rarely involves a prior out-of-state conviction for 
sexual abuse of a child, it emerges that fingerprinting school personnel can at best deal with 
perhaps 0.01%--or one ten-thousandth—of the abuse statewide. 



2)	Agreeing with the above federal statistics are the data in the 2002 NASDTEC 
(Nat. Assoc. of State Dirs. Of Tchr. Educ./Certif.) Manual, which maintains a national 
clearinghouse of school workers decertified for sexual abuse of children.  Maine’s share of 
the national figure derived from 15 years of records works out to less than one (0.87) case per 
year.  Again, the target figure of those whom fingerprinting would discover is considerably 
smaller, however, since usually this “less than one” perpetrator is a first-time offender 
without a prior criminal record for abuse, let alone one from out-of-state.


3)	In further agreement are the Maine Dept. of Education’s own figures:  a 10-year 
review 
of incidents of sexual abuse perpetrated by school employees found only 3 such cases
involving individuals with prior out-of-state convictions, i.e., the only ones mass
fingerprinting would have discovered that weren’t already in Maine criminal records.
(“Essential Points: Criminal History Record Checks on Educational Personnel,”
2/9/2000)


Despite these data, Maine has so far spent close to $3,000,000 trying to address a problem 
that hardly exists - namely, the uncovering of school personnel with previously unknown out-
of-state convictions for sexual abuse of a child.  There are those who say that no amount is too 
much "if it will save one child."  The real question is whether this kind of expenditure is really 
the best approach to preventing child abuse.  Even if mass fingerprinting turns up a previously 
unknown perpetrator, he will simply be dismissed from the schools to prey upon children at large, 
where it is easier.  Linda Meadows, a parent opposed to fingerprinting, put it succinctly:



Perhaps you wouldn’t mind paying $7500 to an exterminator
who said he could catch one rat in your house, but only if it was one he had
caught somewhere else before.  By the way, he is required by law to set the
rat free once he gets it outside your doors because no one is allowed to
know about it.  That is exactly what the fingerprint law claims to provide
	for $750,000 a year.



That same money, sadly, might have been allocated to Maine’s Department of Human Services, 
which - during the same period the law was being questioned - was found to have failed, for lack 
of adequate funds and personnel, to follow up on referrals culminating in the deaths of three 
children (Logan Marr, Michael and Linda Frost).



THE  PRINCIPLED  ARGUMENT



The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has for over 200 years guaranteed every citizen 
freedom from unreasonable search or seizure unless a judicial warrant is issued based on 
evidence of just cause or suspicion of wrong-doing.  It is a practical and vitally important 
application of the principle of presumed innocence.  Despite related supportive rulings of the U.S. 
Supreme Court, a strong argument can be made that Maine’s fingerprinting requirement amounts 
to unreasonable search and seizure (in simple terms, "Come with me down to the fingerprinting 
station, and" - even though you are told you are not under suspicion - "if you refuse to comply, 
you will lose your State credentials, your job and your livelihood").  It should be remembered that 
the U.S. Supreme Court hands down "opinions," some of which have later been found to be "in 
error" (e.g., support of slavery, Japanese-American internment camps; opposition to Social 
Security).   As recently as 1973, the Maine Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the taking 
of fingerprints from a man who was at the time not a suspect (Me. v. Robt. P. Inman – 
3/13/73).


Compounding opponents’ unease with mass fingerprinting is the discovery that the State intends 
to keep these tens of thousands of sets of fingerprints of innocent citizens on electronic file, to be 
scrutinized along with those of convicted criminals as part of future crime scene investigations.   
Thus, school employees who submit to the law thereafter become suspects, not only for 
pedophilia, but for all investigated crimes throughout the state.


But the sweep covers not only Maine.  As part of the ironically named National Crime Prevention 
and Privacy Compact, a national electronic database of criminal and non-criminal records is 
being constructed, accessible only by fingerprints.  Since this vast database - costing 
$750,000,000 per year to assemble - is really just the Internet web of the 50 states’ databases, 
those who submit to Maine’s fingerprinting requirement become potential suspects 
nationwide.  Further complicating the situation is what we know about massive databases, such 
as those housing credit records: that they have unavoidably high error rates and are prone to 
manipulation and abuse.  Orwell’s Big Brother may turn out to be made of silicon.




WHAT  OPPONENTS  DO  NOT  OPPOSE



Opponents of mass fingerprinting do not oppose background checks, which can and should be 
performed by those in charge of hiring.  Where mass FBI checks could easily lull those doing the 
hiring into a false sense of security - "the FBI says he’s clean; I don’t have to look any further" - 
an effective check should dig deeper.  Has the applicant changed his name or social security 
number?  Is there an unbroken chain of prior employment references who do not raise any red 
flags when contacted?  In short, is there any cause for suspicion?  If so, fingerprinting and a 
national criminal history check may be justified, and are already provided for by the 
Volunteers For Children Act (a 1998 amendment to the National Child Protection Act of 1993).  
The VCA grants school superintendents the discretion to require fingerprinting, as they should 
have where suspicion warrants.  But as to mass fingerprinting and checks, the House Report by 
the Committee on the Judiciary that accompanied the National Child Protection Act specifically 
states guidelines for fingerprinting and checks as follows:



The Committee expects that the states will find, for example, that positions
involving long-term or ongoing contact with children in one-on-one situations
merit criminal history record checks and that positions that involve infrequent
direct contact or contact only in group settings do not merit such checks.



Finally, and especially in light of increased security measures both taken and proposed since the 
events of September 11, 2001, the bottom line should be the question: in the search for both 
security and liberty, where do we draw the line?  There are those who urge sacrificing a degree 
of liberty to attain a greater degree of security. On the other hand, Benjamin Franklin 
and many others have advised that this is a false premise, that we will have both or neither.  
In the context of Maine’s fingerprinting law, the question is more pointed: what new, 
more draconian measures will be proposed and perhaps adopted, should - despite 
fingerprinting - another child be someday abused by a school employee?  For surely this will 
happen, but likely by a first-time offender or one with no prior conviction.  Will the cry go up for 
surveillance cameras in every school room?  Will employees be subjected to lie-detector tests, or  
DNA sampling tied to someone’s idea of a genetic predisposition to abuse?  Ultimately the 
controversy over Maine’s fingerprinting law goes to the heart of how, as a society, we wish to 
live.  



...we [think of Orwell] in the constant demand for greater security and comfort,
 for less risk in our societies.  We recognize, however dimly, that greater 
efficiency, ease, and security may come at a substantial price in freedom,
that law and order can be a doublethink version of oppression,
that individual liberties surrendered for whatever good reason are freedom lost.




Walter Cronkite



Prepared by Maine Educators Against Fingerprinting, 1 Stone Ridge Drive, Waterville, ME 04901
info@slipperyslope.org