15 ms·

Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

152 points by danso 5y ago

xkeysc0re 5y ago
Fortunately enough, my own mug shot was taken offline when the local news site when bust. It used to be the only thing that came up when you searched me. This happened right at the beginning of my career so I was terrified of the albatross hanging over me. Well, then the pivot-to-video era came and lots of small newspapers and local sites got swallowed up by WickedLocal and the like. I don't think it hindered my career too much. For the record, I was found innocent. But that doesn't mean your mug shot gets taken down. Recently I tried to procure a copy of it for my own records (it's a pretty funny photo as I'm wearing a ridiculous outfit and have a shall we say altered expression) but it's quite a lot of paperwork for an individual to get it, at least in my state.
jollybean 5y ago
I'm wary of the fact that mug shots are made and publicized before any facts, objectivity or legal scrutiny, yet they appear to make the person 'look guilty'. I suggest they shouldn't be public information until sentencing, and then only 'valid' or publishable while a person is incarcerated. I think the idea is supposed to be if you 'server your time' you get a chance to have a normal life again.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Think the original idea for releasing this information was to prevent the police from secretly disappearing people, which has happened quite a bit around the world. The police know, if they take someone into custody, that it will be part of the public record for all to see.
  - duskwuff 5y ago
    Which is fine when it's just the police making that information available on a short-term, need-to-know basis. When you have third parties (like "mugshot sites") republishing that information in a more lasting and public form, it becomes a problem.
  - HighPlainsDrftr 5y ago
    We really need to limit the reasons a person can be taken into custody. There are valid reasons, and we need to evaluate those reasons too. Too often, people just end up in custody (and then depriving the public of their usefulness).
- dfxm12 5y ago
  If you think a mug shot makes someone look guilty, do you not believe someone is innocent until proven guilty? Perhaps that the real issue. People don't understand how the justice system works. People put too much blind faith in cops.
  - paulpauper 5y ago
    a lot of people plead guilty too
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    It doesn't matter what you believe. A significant chunk of people will just assume guilt and repeat/propagate the information, whether through naivete or malice. Having a large number of people saying 'X is a criminal' based solely on the existence of the mugshot is a problem. Some people do it because it fits a political agenda, other people are credulous fools who believe they can see evil by looking at the eyes in a photograph, and of course mugshots are like passport photographs in that they have unflattering direct lighting/straight on posture, subjects are discouraged from smiling etc.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      It's not so much the assumption of guilt as a kind of 'bias'. 'It doesn't make you good look good', or it 'kind of makes you look guilty'. I think most people recognize that it doesn't imply guilt, but it's a strong signal in that direction. A person who gets a mugshot, and is subsequently let off the hook ... doesn't really recover from the stain of bad PR. A mugshot could ruin a CEO's career for example, in law there is exoneration, but in populism there often isn't. Or not like that. They'd have to hire a PR firm to do a public reparation of their image. For those who are actually guilty of course it's less relevant.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > If you think a mug shot makes someone look guilty, do you not believe someone is innocent until proven guilty? The US justice system, at least, officially does not believe that, or else pre-trial detention wouldn't be punitive. When jail starts looking like a college dorm, I'll be convinced otherwise.
dfxm12 5y ago
What are the forces at play here? People don't want to be embarrassed by their mugshot vs people don't want to be discriminated against because of a mugshot vs the transparency of who cops are arresting and why. I don't know if laws should care about someone being embarrassed. I'm kind of surprised about this anti-transparency rhetoric coming someone who started a Libertarian think tank (but maybe I shouldn't be). I can sympathize with those who think having their arrest record publicized will lead to discrimination, but I don't think hiding mugshots will have much of an effect on that. Plus, if that's an issue we want to solve, then make laws that actually target discrimination because of arrest record & laws that otherwise protect the rights of those accused of crimes. I think most importantly, arrests need to be publicly available. We have a right to know who the cops are arresting and why, lest people start disappearing or jailed for mysterious reasons (or for looking a certain way). In general, I think our government isn't nearly transparent enough...
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  > I think most importantly, arrests need to be publicly available. We have a right to know who the cops are arresting and why That's a good point, but on the other side there is the (very important) presumption of innocence. If I'm arrested, but not convicted of any crime (or possibly not even charged), why should that be a public record that will haunt me forever?
  - dfxm12 5y ago
    The question is why/how is it haunting you? See my 2nd point. If our culture treats the accused poorly, that's not the fault of nor is it caused by public mugshots.
    - itake 5y ago
      How do you correct the problem of our culture treating the accused poorly? If you're arrested under false pretenses (just google search "cops planting drugs" to see countless videos), how do we prevent life-long impact of innocent people?
errantspark 5y ago
I wonder in the discussions surrounding these sorts of things (Right to be Forgotten, etc) if the issue isn't that there should be a right to be forgotten but rather that culturally we should be far far more tolerant of people fucking up. It feels like the perception of how much the average member of society transgresses its rules is totally out of sync with reality, though this may be by design to create space for exploitation.
- Mediterraneo10 5y ago
  A problem with mugshot sites is that they often detail the charges, and sometimes the charges just aren’t something people are going to be tolerant of. For example, I know a young man who traded nude photos on his phone with a girlfriend who was just below the age of consent, got caught, and was arrested and charged with "sexual exploitation of a minor". Once in court, those charges were easily plea-bargained away, but the mugshot and charges will probably be findable on the web for years and years, and changing the public’s kneejerk reaction of disgust and hatred at those charges (after all, the actual context isn’t there for them to read) isn’t something that I would be optimistic about.
  - duskwuff 5y ago
    If anything, that feels like an argument in favor of restricting what can be published about arrests and unproven charges in general -- not just the mugshots.
    - kolinko 5y ago
      In my country, but I think in EU in general, Police are not allowed anything besides the first name and a first letter of surname. Innocent until proven guilty. Press also never publishes the surname, although they can publish occupation or other non-identifying information. This has lead to an amusing situation when press articles appeared one day: “John X., a son of an ex-president was charged with causing a car crash”. As a side note, even conviction records are sealed, because you have a right to expunge any conviction 5 years after you served your term. Records being public would stay online forever otherwise. (In places where you need to not be a convicted felon, you can obtain a government certificate to show as a proof)
matsemann 5y ago
Why are names and pictures published before one even know if the person is guilty? And even if found guilty, why does the media use so much personal information? In my country it's always anonymous in the media, unless it's a person the media deems as the public having an interest in knowing about (political figure or so).
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
  It's a dirty little, not so secret, shameful pastime of America. For the same reason that we love Dr. Phil, live pd, or judge Judy we love feeling better than stupid, ignorant, uneducated, abused, neglected, diseased, impoverished, drug addicted, poor people the narratives crafted to fit the mugshots and clips we see in the news or online. I highly recommend listening to the latest two parter from Behind the Bastards, about Dr. Phil. Part 1 https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-dr-phil-is-even-82410850/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236... Part 2 https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-dr-phil-is-even-82492562/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236... The whole darn podcast is great too. I'm not associated, or donating, nor do I even listen to the ads, I'm just a satisfied listener.
- moshmosh 5y ago
  I think the idea is that making charges & arrests public keeps the system transparent, and makes it harder for the government to disappear people or otherwise do crazy despotic stuff. In practice I'm not convinced it was net-beneficial before the Internet, and I'm almost certain it's not in an Internet-equipped world.
  - _jal 5y ago
    This is the reason. The US justice system is meant to operate in the open, to serve the interests of the public who finances it. Same reason it is generally very difficult to litigate under seal. Observations about the difference between theory and practice omitted.
    - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
LorenPechtel 5y ago
Good idea. I'd also like to see a law making it criminal for a site to post such information without also obviously posting that charges are dropped. You have one week to either take it down entirely or clearly mark it as dropped. If neither is done the post will be considered extortion. A very minor burden on news sites that have to update old articles. A big burden on the extortionist websites. And by making it a criminal matter it doesn't matter if the site is hosted offshore.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > I'd also like to see a law making it criminal for a site to post such information without also obviously posting that charges are dropped. You have one week to either take it down entirely or clearly mark it as dropped. If neither is done the post will be considered extortion. Not only should it be criminal, but people should also be able to file civil suits for damages against businesses that are willing to expend resources to dig up and publish criminal charges and arrest records, but refuse to expend any resources to follow up on their published claims. It's one thing when tabloids parade around dirt on public figures, it's another thing entirely when the same is done to private individuals.
  - thrwhizzle 5y ago
    Criminal charges and arrest records are public information. You could not possibly pass a law forbidding someone from displaying public information. And we certainly would not want to pivot to secret court systems. I think what you really want is just transparency.
    - LorenPechtel 5y ago
      Yeah, I think we need to allow publishing them so you can't have secret arrests. What I'm proposing to make criminal is publishing deceptive records. So long as you tell the whole truth, fine.
      - thrwhizzle 5y ago
andrewla 5y ago
I like that the proposed bills here are not attempts to force sites to remove mug shots (which seems like a losing battle) but instead just resists posting mug shots at all, which seems like something that police departments have complete control over. Unless it serves a legitimate law enforcement end, either as part of a punishment for being convicted of a crime or to aid the public in the search for a fugitive, it should simply not ever be released to the public in any form. And frankly the former seems inhumane for all but the most serious crimes.
- aspaceman 5y ago
  My local police department posts mugshots on their Twitter, sends copies to the local newspaper, and types up a detailed report for the local radio station for _every_ _single_ _interaction_. "John Doe was pulled over by X police Saturday afternoon for a speeding violation. Jane Y was ..." And every Sunday, the local station plays these. So you know every single person who was pulled over. The vehicle they drive. Etc. Small towns are a special sort of hell. You get pulled over and your grandma is on your case about it. What's really sad is you get used to hearing "resisting a police officer" as their supposed reason for getting brought in - you'll get one a month usually.
  - sprite 5y ago
    That’s crazy.
  - swiley 5y ago
    It will end up on the feed the court publishes, so it's not like it isn't public information. The police could chill out though and not make a bad situation worse.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      There's a difference between the information simply being "public" and a social media account blasting out people's mugshots on Twitter.
Wistar 5y ago
Perhaps everyone should publish a mugshot portrait of themselves so that no one knows which are real and which aren't.
hermannj314 5y ago
I realize this may be a cynical take, but what if the goal is to prevent us from recording the cops? Today the law is a nice friendly "dont put mugshots on the internet" and within a few years the actual practice of the law is you can no longer film a cop abusing his power because "perp hasnt been convicted, put your phone away" I guess I have absolutely no trust. Any law our government passes is just part of long con to take away our liberties. I realize this is a pessimistic hot take on what appears at face to be a good law.
CecilBDeMilles 5y ago
This simply reinforces the statement that once you're in the system that you're always in the system.
ajdlinux 5y ago
Are there any other democratic countries apart from the US where posting arrest mugshots is standard police practice?
- herbst 5y ago
  As far as I know no. But there are also few so little democratic countries running around calling themselves democratic.

152 points by danso 5y ago

Fortunately enough, my own mug shot was taken offline when the local news site when bust. It used to be the only thing that came up when you searched me. This happened right at the beginning of my career so I was terrified of the albatross hanging over me. Well, then the pivot-to-video era came and lots of small newspapers and local sites got swallowed up by WickedLocal and the like. I don't think it hindered my career too much. For the record, I was found innocent. But that doesn't mean your mug shot gets taken down. Recently I tried to procure a copy of it for my own records (it's a pretty funny photo as I'm wearing a ridiculous outfit and have a shall we say altered expression) but it's quite a lot of paperwork for an individual to get it, at least in my state.

jollybean 5y ago

I'm wary of the fact that mug shots are made and publicized before any facts, objectivity or legal scrutiny, yet they appear to make the person 'look guilty'. I suggest they shouldn't be public information until sentencing, and then only 'valid' or publishable while a person is incarcerated. I think the idea is supposed to be if you 'server your time' you get a chance to have a normal life again.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Think the original idea for releasing this information was to prevent the police from secretly disappearing people, which has happened quite a bit around the world. The police know, if they take someone into custody, that it will be part of the public record for all to see.
- duskwuff 5y ago
  Which is fine when it's just the police making that information available on a short-term, need-to-know basis. When you have third parties (like "mugshot sites") republishing that information in a more lasting and public form, it becomes a problem.
- HighPlainsDrftr 5y ago
  We really need to limit the reasons a person can be taken into custody. There are valid reasons, and we need to evaluate those reasons too. Too often, people just end up in custody (and then depriving the public of their usefulness).
dfxm12 5y ago
If you think a mug shot makes someone look guilty, do you not believe someone is innocent until proven guilty? Perhaps that the real issue. People don't understand how the justice system works. People put too much blind faith in cops.
- paulpauper 5y ago
  a lot of people plead guilty too
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  It doesn't matter what you believe. A significant chunk of people will just assume guilt and repeat/propagate the information, whether through naivete or malice. Having a large number of people saying 'X is a criminal' based solely on the existence of the mugshot is a problem. Some people do it because it fits a political agenda, other people are credulous fools who believe they can see evil by looking at the eyes in a photograph, and of course mugshots are like passport photographs in that they have unflattering direct lighting/straight on posture, subjects are discouraged from smiling etc.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    It's not so much the assumption of guilt as a kind of 'bias'. 'It doesn't make you good look good', or it 'kind of makes you look guilty'. I think most people recognize that it doesn't imply guilt, but it's a strong signal in that direction. A person who gets a mugshot, and is subsequently let off the hook ... doesn't really recover from the stain of bad PR. A mugshot could ruin a CEO's career for example, in law there is exoneration, but in populism there often isn't. Or not like that. They'd have to hire a PR firm to do a public reparation of their image. For those who are actually guilty of course it's less relevant.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > If you think a mug shot makes someone look guilty, do you not believe someone is innocent until proven guilty? The US justice system, at least, officially does not believe that, or else pre-trial detention wouldn't be punitive. When jail starts looking like a college dorm, I'll be convinced otherwise.

dfxm12 5y ago

What are the forces at play here? People don't want to be embarrassed by their mugshot vs people don't want to be discriminated against because of a mugshot vs the transparency of who cops are arresting and why. I don't know if laws should care about someone being embarrassed. I'm kind of surprised about this anti-transparency rhetoric coming someone who started a Libertarian think tank (but maybe I shouldn't be). I can sympathize with those who think having their arrest record publicized will lead to discrimination, but I don't think hiding mugshots will have much of an effect on that. Plus, if that's an issue we want to solve, then make laws that actually target discrimination because of arrest record & laws that otherwise protect the rights of those accused of crimes. I think most importantly, arrests need to be publicly available. We have a right to know who the cops are arresting and why, lest people start disappearing or jailed for mysterious reasons (or for looking a certain way). In general, I think our government isn't nearly transparent enough...

throwawayboise 5y ago
> I think most importantly, arrests need to be publicly available. We have a right to know who the cops are arresting and why That's a good point, but on the other side there is the (very important) presumption of innocence. If I'm arrested, but not convicted of any crime (or possibly not even charged), why should that be a public record that will haunt me forever?
- dfxm12 5y ago
  The question is why/how is it haunting you? See my 2nd point. If our culture treats the accused poorly, that's not the fault of nor is it caused by public mugshots.
  - itake 5y ago
    How do you correct the problem of our culture treating the accused poorly? If you're arrested under false pretenses (just google search "cops planting drugs" to see countless videos), how do we prevent life-long impact of innocent people?

errantspark 5y ago

I wonder in the discussions surrounding these sorts of things (Right to be Forgotten, etc) if the issue isn't that there should be a right to be forgotten but rather that culturally we should be far far more tolerant of people fucking up. It feels like the perception of how much the average member of society transgresses its rules is totally out of sync with reality, though this may be by design to create space for exploitation.

Mediterraneo10 5y ago
A problem with mugshot sites is that they often detail the charges, and sometimes the charges just aren’t something people are going to be tolerant of. For example, I know a young man who traded nude photos on his phone with a girlfriend who was just below the age of consent, got caught, and was arrested and charged with "sexual exploitation of a minor". Once in court, those charges were easily plea-bargained away, but the mugshot and charges will probably be findable on the web for years and years, and changing the public’s kneejerk reaction of disgust and hatred at those charges (after all, the actual context isn’t there for them to read) isn’t something that I would be optimistic about.
- duskwuff 5y ago
  If anything, that feels like an argument in favor of restricting what can be published about arrests and unproven charges in general -- not just the mugshots.
  - kolinko 5y ago
    In my country, but I think in EU in general, Police are not allowed anything besides the first name and a first letter of surname. Innocent until proven guilty. Press also never publishes the surname, although they can publish occupation or other non-identifying information. This has lead to an amusing situation when press articles appeared one day: “John X., a son of an ex-president was charged with causing a car crash”. As a side note, even conviction records are sealed, because you have a right to expunge any conviction 5 years after you served your term. Records being public would stay online forever otherwise. (In places where you need to not be a convicted felon, you can obtain a government certificate to show as a proof)

matsemann 5y ago

Why are names and pictures published before one even know if the person is guilty? And even if found guilty, why does the media use so much personal information? In my country it's always anonymous in the media, unless it's a person the media deems as the public having an interest in knowing about (political figure or so).

Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
It's a dirty little, not so secret, shameful pastime of America. For the same reason that we love Dr. Phil, live pd, or judge Judy we love feeling better than stupid, ignorant, uneducated, abused, neglected, diseased, impoverished, drug addicted, poor people the narratives crafted to fit the mugshots and clips we see in the news or online. I highly recommend listening to the latest two parter from Behind the Bastards, about Dr. Phil. Part 1 https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-dr-phil-is-even-82410850/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236... Part 2 https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-dr-phil-is-even-82492562/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236... The whole darn podcast is great too. I'm not associated, or donating, nor do I even listen to the ads, I'm just a satisfied listener.
moshmosh 5y ago
I think the idea is that making charges & arrests public keeps the system transparent, and makes it harder for the government to disappear people or otherwise do crazy despotic stuff. In practice I'm not convinced it was net-beneficial before the Internet, and I'm almost certain it's not in an Internet-equipped world.
- _jal 5y ago
  This is the reason. The US justice system is meant to operate in the open, to serve the interests of the public who finances it. Same reason it is generally very difficult to litigate under seal. Observations about the difference between theory and practice omitted.
  - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

LorenPechtel 5y ago

Good idea. I'd also like to see a law making it criminal for a site to post such information without also obviously posting that charges are dropped. You have one week to either take it down entirely or clearly mark it as dropped. If neither is done the post will be considered extortion. A very minor burden on news sites that have to update old articles. A big burden on the extortionist websites. And by making it a criminal matter it doesn't matter if the site is hosted offshore.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> I'd also like to see a law making it criminal for a site to post such information without also obviously posting that charges are dropped. You have one week to either take it down entirely or clearly mark it as dropped. If neither is done the post will be considered extortion. Not only should it be criminal, but people should also be able to file civil suits for damages against businesses that are willing to expend resources to dig up and publish criminal charges and arrest records, but refuse to expend any resources to follow up on their published claims. It's one thing when tabloids parade around dirt on public figures, it's another thing entirely when the same is done to private individuals.
- thrwhizzle 5y ago
  Criminal charges and arrest records are public information. You could not possibly pass a law forbidding someone from displaying public information. And we certainly would not want to pivot to secret court systems. I think what you really want is just transparency.
  - LorenPechtel 5y ago
    Yeah, I think we need to allow publishing them so you can't have secret arrests. What I'm proposing to make criminal is publishing deceptive records. So long as you tell the whole truth, fine.
    - thrwhizzle 5y ago

andrewla 5y ago

I like that the proposed bills here are not attempts to force sites to remove mug shots (which seems like a losing battle) but instead just resists posting mug shots at all, which seems like something that police departments have complete control over. Unless it serves a legitimate law enforcement end, either as part of a punishment for being convicted of a crime or to aid the public in the search for a fugitive, it should simply not ever be released to the public in any form. And frankly the former seems inhumane for all but the most serious crimes.

aspaceman 5y ago
My local police department posts mugshots on their Twitter, sends copies to the local newspaper, and types up a detailed report for the local radio station for _every_ _single_ _interaction_. "John Doe was pulled over by X police Saturday afternoon for a speeding violation. Jane Y was ..." And every Sunday, the local station plays these. So you know every single person who was pulled over. The vehicle they drive. Etc. Small towns are a special sort of hell. You get pulled over and your grandma is on your case about it. What's really sad is you get used to hearing "resisting a police officer" as their supposed reason for getting brought in - you'll get one a month usually.
- sprite 5y ago
  That’s crazy.
- swiley 5y ago
  It will end up on the feed the court publishes, so it's not like it isn't public information. The police could chill out though and not make a bad situation worse.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    There's a difference between the information simply being "public" and a social media account blasting out people's mugshots on Twitter.

Wistar 5y ago

Perhaps everyone should publish a mugshot portrait of themselves so that no one knows which are real and which aren't.

hermannj314 5y ago

I realize this may be a cynical take, but what if the goal is to prevent us from recording the cops? Today the law is a nice friendly "dont put mugshots on the internet" and within a few years the actual practice of the law is you can no longer film a cop abusing his power because "perp hasnt been convicted, put your phone away" I guess I have absolutely no trust. Any law our government passes is just part of long con to take away our liberties. I realize this is a pessimistic hot take on what appears at face to be a good law.

CecilBDeMilles 5y ago

This simply reinforces the statement that once you're in the system that you're always in the system.

ajdlinux 5y ago

Are there any other democratic countries apart from the US where posting arrest mugshots is standard police practice?

herbst 5y ago
As far as I know no. But there are also few so little democratic countries running around calling themselves democratic.