6 ms·

I actually do not understand why mugshots should be public in the first place. We already have a way to check someone's criminal record - why the need for publ

by omonra 13y ago

I actually do not understand why mugshots should be public in the first place. We already have a way to check someone's criminal record - why the need for public access to a record of someone being arrested - even though no charges might have been filed?

Anechoic 13y ago
I think having that information public in the moment is valuable in that it alerts a community to a possible danger and allows for the community to verify the indignity of the arrestee (for example if the arrested person is using an assumed identity or shares the same name as someone who has not been charged with a crime). Now whether that data should be public for all time (especially for those who were not charged with a crime or found non guilty) is a different story.
- moron4hire 13y ago
  A little slowness is not a bad thing from time to time. Until a person is proven guilty of a crime in a court of law, I don't think any details should be made public. Rumor has a way of destroying people, even when the rumor is false.
- frobozz 13y ago
  There is no such thing as information that is public "in the moment". Once data has been published, it can't be unpublished. Someone will have a copy, and will likely publish it on. This is particularly true wrt crime, there are plenty of armchair vigilantes who think that an arrest is proof of guilt and see nothing wrong with publishing arrest records of people they believe have "gotten away with it". With this in mind, once a record of an arrest has been published, an official published record must persist, so that it can be linked with the outcome. Otherwise those who republish indiscriminately (or worse, those whose intent is to defame) will be able to define the "truth" as they see fit.
- Retric 13y ago
  Someone that's been arrested is currently zero threat to the public. What in the moment possible danger exists?
anigbrowl 13y ago
The first amendment - news media companies and others argue the public has 'a right to know,' so even if a government body chooses not to publish them others will. News organizations are quick to sue for access to anything like this that they know will sell a lot of papers. I consider this a prime example of why the US needs a constitutional privacy amendment. In many European countries police and reporters are forbidden to reveal an arrestee's name until charges have been laid against the person, and some governments (eg the UK, from whom our legal system derives) have been considering granting anonymity during trial for defendants accused of sex crimes, since even a false accusation can wreck someone's life completely, and accusations of rape or child abuse are more likely to result in vigilante action than accusations of murder.
joelgrus 13y ago
Agreed, it seems like the root problem here is that mugshot data is being made publicly available for people who haven't been convicted of crimes. Being arrested is a far cry from being guilty of something. It's very unclear what "public interest" is served by making these available in the first place.
Amadou 13y ago
why the need for public access to a record of someone being arrested It is intended to prevent secret arrests. It is absolutely sucky for individuals to have their arrests made public, but the consequences of enabling secret arrests would be terrible for the country as a whole.
- chopin 13y ago
  Can you explain this? In Germany, where I live there are no public mugshots (in fact this is explicitly forbidden) and I am pretty sure that we don't have secret arrests. In which way do public mugshots prevent secret arrests? In case you want to arrest someone secretly, just don't publish the mugshot.

by omonra 13y ago

Anechoic 13y ago

I think having that information public in the moment is valuable in that it alerts a community to a possible danger and allows for the community to verify the indignity of the arrestee (for example if the arrested person is using an assumed identity or shares the same name as someone who has not been charged with a crime). Now whether that data should be public for all time (especially for those who were not charged with a crime or found non guilty) is a different story.

moron4hire 13y ago
A little slowness is not a bad thing from time to time. Until a person is proven guilty of a crime in a court of law, I don't think any details should be made public. Rumor has a way of destroying people, even when the rumor is false.
frobozz 13y ago
There is no such thing as information that is public "in the moment". Once data has been published, it can't be unpublished. Someone will have a copy, and will likely publish it on. This is particularly true wrt crime, there are plenty of armchair vigilantes who think that an arrest is proof of guilt and see nothing wrong with publishing arrest records of people they believe have "gotten away with it". With this in mind, once a record of an arrest has been published, an official published record must persist, so that it can be linked with the outcome. Otherwise those who republish indiscriminately (or worse, those whose intent is to defame) will be able to define the "truth" as they see fit.
Retric 13y ago
Someone that's been arrested is currently zero threat to the public. What in the moment possible danger exists?

anigbrowl 13y ago

The first amendment - news media companies and others argue the public has 'a right to know,' so even if a government body chooses not to publish them others will. News organizations are quick to sue for access to anything like this that they know will sell a lot of papers. I consider this a prime example of why the US needs a constitutional privacy amendment. In many European countries police and reporters are forbidden to reveal an arrestee's name until charges have been laid against the person, and some governments (eg the UK, from whom our legal system derives) have been considering granting anonymity during trial for defendants accused of sex crimes, since even a false accusation can wreck someone's life completely, and accusations of rape or child abuse are more likely to result in vigilante action than accusations of murder.

joelgrus 13y ago

Agreed, it seems like the root problem here is that mugshot data is being made publicly available for people who haven't been convicted of crimes. Being arrested is a far cry from being guilty of something. It's very unclear what "public interest" is served by making these available in the first place.

Amadou 13y ago

why the need for public access to a record of someone being arrested It is intended to prevent secret arrests. It is absolutely sucky for individuals to have their arrests made public, but the consequences of enabling secret arrests would be terrible for the country as a whole.

chopin 13y ago
Can you explain this? In Germany, where I live there are no public mugshots (in fact this is explicitly forbidden) and I am pretty sure that we don't have secret arrests. In which way do public mugshots prevent secret arrests? In case you want to arrest someone secretly, just don't publish the mugshot.