4 ms·

I don't know how it would mesh with the US constitution, but Canada, while still having freedom of expression, has much stronger rules about police and courts r

I don't know how it would mesh with the US constitution, but Canada, while still having freedom of expression, has much stronger rules about police and courts releasing names. Judges will happily kick all reporters out of a courtroom if personal details are leaked in the press. They will castigate police and prosecutors if they release too much information that could taint the jury pool, etc. There is no legal need for jails and police to release all of the details and photos that they do. A simple notice that a person is in police custody fulfills the argument against hidden arrests, while also not providing enough to damage a reputation. Announcing arrest reasons before charges have even been laid is unconscionable in a world where googling a name is this easy.

soneil 2y ago
I always understood this to be a trust issue. "We" (loosely, I'm English) tend towards trusting the courts, so we allow them to keep secrets. The US was built on a healthy distrust of the state, so names were released so people aren't "disappeared". But the US has moved much more towards "no smoke without fire", leaving the release of names in an antiquated place.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  But my point is that releasing a name is different than releasing an unflattering booking shot and an arrest reason that hasn't been brought to a court, or even been referred to a prosecutor for validity. Bogus charges get dropped all the time, but the mugshot and uncharged arresting reason are still posted for all. This is a dangerous tool in the hands of a flawed institution. We know that people get arrested for trumped up charges, or outright fabrications that later get silently dropped. Point being, if all you do is maintain a list of names of who you have in custody, you are fulfilling the American Habeas Corpus requirements. There's no constitutional requirement that mugshots need to be released publicly on the internet, there's no rule that the police need to announce what crime a person is suspected of before a charge has been laid. Americans can maintain a healthy distrust of police without wholesale public release on the internet of the details of an arrest.

soneil 2y ago

I always understood this to be a trust issue. "We" (loosely, I'm English) tend towards trusting the courts, so we allow them to keep secrets. The US was built on a healthy distrust of the state, so names were released so people aren't "disappeared". But the US has moved much more towards "no smoke without fire", leaving the release of names in an antiquated place.

dghlsakjg 2y ago
But my point is that releasing a name is different than releasing an unflattering booking shot and an arrest reason that hasn't been brought to a court, or even been referred to a prosecutor for validity. Bogus charges get dropped all the time, but the mugshot and uncharged arresting reason are still posted for all. This is a dangerous tool in the hands of a flawed institution. We know that people get arrested for trumped up charges, or outright fabrications that later get silently dropped. Point being, if all you do is maintain a list of names of who you have in custody, you are fulfilling the American Habeas Corpus requirements. There's no constitutional requirement that mugshots need to be released publicly on the internet, there's no rule that the police need to announce what crime a person is suspected of before a charge has been laid. Americans can maintain a healthy distrust of police without wholesale public release on the internet of the details of an arrest.