3 ms·

Can someone more clearly explain to me how the transparency laws actually improve transparency in practice? Why would a police department, who would act in a w

Can someone more clearly explain to me how the transparency laws actually improve transparency in practice? Why would a police department, who would act in a way malicious enough to disappear people, suddenly start adhering to the requirement of publishing a mugshot of a person they want to disappear?

dodobirdlord 5y ago
“Disappear” doesn’t necessarily mean “murder and hide the body”. It can also cover harassing people and completely disrupting their lives by throwing them in jail for a while for no particularly good reason and then not telling anyone until you release them (possibly having beaten or raped them in the meanwhile, and extracted promises of future regime-approved behavior). Requiring that the police make public who they have arrested and why ensures that person’s family and friends, and especially importantly, their lawyer, can find out where they have vanished to and why, and bring it to the attention of a judge and the public immediately if the arrest was nefarious. This way if the police want to use disappearance as a harassment tactic, they have to escalate all the way to “murder and hide the body”, or they will eventually have to face justice when they finally release the person and reveal that they had been holding them the entire time in secret.
- antihipocrat 5y ago
  Thanks for that, I understand the argument a little more. If reducing undue harassment and disruption is the reason for publishing mugshots, and it turns out that in practice the mugshots are actually being used by others to harass and disrupt (potentially innocent) people's lives, then maybe it's worth reviewing the practice? Where I'm from most minor criminal convictions on a persons the record are essentially wiped clean after 10 years (technically 'spent', and won't appear in normal police checks). It is illegal for people to obtain information about a spent conviction and use that information unless it is related to sexual abuse or violent crime. Another thing, what happens to the people who don't have a lawyer or whose friends and family don't have the resources to take on the police department in the event that the police detain and abuse them? Who would they be able to call in that situation to seek justice if the same police who committed the crime are receiving the call?
  - dodobirdlord 5y ago
    It’s generally recognized (at least in the United States) that limiting the potential for abuse by the government or agents of the government is more important than limiting other forms of abuse. A person has a variety of forms of recourse against non-governmental abuse (including appealing to the government), but the only recourse against abuse by the government is violent revolution. Even when raising a formal complaint against the government, it is the government that adjudicates whether the government’s behavior was abusive. So it is essential, even if it causes other negative side effects, that the government not be able to abuse people in secret, or in ways that it can later deny occurred. > Another thing, what happens to the people who don't have a lawyer or whose friends and family don't have the resources to take on the police department in the event that the police detain and abuse them? Who would they be able to call in that situation to seek justice if the same police who committed the crime are receiving the call? In theory, assuming the police don’t entirely disappear someone, they will eventually be released or have to be tried in court. In either case they would then be in a position to report local police misconduct to either a regional authority like a county sheriff, or to the FBI, which has a general mandate to investigate abuses of people’s rights. In practice, the rule of law can be thin on the ground outside of metropolitan areas. Police departments are small and tight-knit, judges are extremely friendly with the police, juries are extremely likely to rubber-stamp whatever charges local police want to happen, and police and prosecution are likely to “forget” about a wide variety of standards and public disclosure requirements.

dodobirdlord 5y ago

“Disappear” doesn’t necessarily mean “murder and hide the body”. It can also cover harassing people and completely disrupting their lives by throwing them in jail for a while for no particularly good reason and then not telling anyone until you release them (possibly having beaten or raped them in the meanwhile, and extracted promises of future regime-approved behavior). Requiring that the police make public who they have arrested and why ensures that person’s family and friends, and especially importantly, their lawyer, can find out where they have vanished to and why, and bring it to the attention of a judge and the public immediately if the arrest was nefarious. This way if the police want to use disappearance as a harassment tactic, they have to escalate all the way to “murder and hide the body”, or they will eventually have to face justice when they finally release the person and reveal that they had been holding them the entire time in secret.

antihipocrat 5y ago
Thanks for that, I understand the argument a little more. If reducing undue harassment and disruption is the reason for publishing mugshots, and it turns out that in practice the mugshots are actually being used by others to harass and disrupt (potentially innocent) people's lives, then maybe it's worth reviewing the practice? Where I'm from most minor criminal convictions on a persons the record are essentially wiped clean after 10 years (technically 'spent', and won't appear in normal police checks). It is illegal for people to obtain information about a spent conviction and use that information unless it is related to sexual abuse or violent crime. Another thing, what happens to the people who don't have a lawyer or whose friends and family don't have the resources to take on the police department in the event that the police detain and abuse them? Who would they be able to call in that situation to seek justice if the same police who committed the crime are receiving the call?
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  It’s generally recognized (at least in the United States) that limiting the potential for abuse by the government or agents of the government is more important than limiting other forms of abuse. A person has a variety of forms of recourse against non-governmental abuse (including appealing to the government), but the only recourse against abuse by the government is violent revolution. Even when raising a formal complaint against the government, it is the government that adjudicates whether the government’s behavior was abusive. So it is essential, even if it causes other negative side effects, that the government not be able to abuse people in secret, or in ways that it can later deny occurred. > Another thing, what happens to the people who don't have a lawyer or whose friends and family don't have the resources to take on the police department in the event that the police detain and abuse them? Who would they be able to call in that situation to seek justice if the same police who committed the crime are receiving the call? In theory, assuming the police don’t entirely disappear someone, they will eventually be released or have to be tried in court. In either case they would then be in a position to report local police misconduct to either a regional authority like a county sheriff, or to the FBI, which has a general mandate to investigate abuses of people’s rights. In practice, the rule of law can be thin on the ground outside of metropolitan areas. Police departments are small and tight-knit, judges are extremely friendly with the police, juries are extremely likely to rubber-stamp whatever charges local police want to happen, and police and prosecution are likely to “forget” about a wide variety of standards and public disclosure requirements.