`.. just because a person initially commits a low-level misdemeanour such as dog fouling, it does not mean they will not progress to the gravest crimes.`
I would argue that there is nothing that means they will either. In the same way that someone who has a perfectly `clean` record may commit a major crime at the first instance. The other argument is that highly competent criminals have less chance of being detected.
The police will always want more information on everyone and everything; it is in the nature of their work. They argue it makes their job easier and the innocent have no need to worry. Unfortunately this is also the same argument used in Police States.
It used to be that anyone arrested and charged was fingerprinted but then if found `not guilty` these records were destroyed. We now appear to be going for identity card details by the back door. I am far from certain about identity cards being of great value but I have concerns about the information being held; or at least its secure retention and the uses to which it could be put. Similarly records held by the C.R.O. indicate a criminal intent even where total innocence has been demonstrated.