With the recent hand transplant in the forefront of the new I have a hypothetical
question.
If a convicted criminal, or person with previous offences and no longer 'active', should have a hand transplant,would the police be justified in wanting to fingerprint the new hand to keep the prints on record along with the prints from the other (good) hand?
Good point, anyone who has ever even been arrested will have their fingerprints on record , so the chance of getting a hand that has a 'record' must be quite high.
It wasn't so much that I was thinking of Eddie.
But if the recipient reoffends and his fingerprints from the new hand are not on record as they would originally have been from his previous hand, assuming he had one, the police would have nothing to go on unless the fingerprints from his other hand are left behind as well.
I'm sure the police will ask for a law that anyone who has a 'record' and gets a hand transplant has to have the new hand fingerprinted.
Say the 'new hand' was from a criminal so the finger prints were on record, then the new owner committed a crime, the finger prints would show up as from someone who was dead.
Be interesting if the hand has a "memory". My OH hated shopping, couldn't cook and could take or leave chocolate. After his kidney transplant he couldn't shop enough....ate chocolate like it was going out of fashion and started buying cookery books and experimenting in the kitchen. His kidney donor was a fairly young woman.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.