Thursday, January 21, 2016
Question of the Week No. 2
Police booking photos are routinely taken when a
person is arrested by a law enforcement agency.
These mug shots are public documents in most states and have spawned
several websites which post the mug shots online, e.g. mugshots.com. In 2013, Utah passed a law that forces people
who want copies of mug shots to swear under oath that they will not post it on
a website that charges a fee to remove the photo. Open records advocates have warned that the
bill sets a dangerous precedent of the government demanding to know what
someone intends to do with public information.
Privacy advocates argue that some arrested persons are never charged
with a crime or are acquitted and should not have to pay a fee to eliminate an
embarrassing and private incident. Is
Utah’s mug shot law sound public policy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Utah's mug shot law is a sound policy. Yes, mug shots are public documents but the people those mug shots are taken of are real human beings with families, occupations, and reputations to uphold. Just because someone was charged with a crime and booked into police custody does not mean that they should be subjected to blackmail and have to relive the incident in trying to get the photo removed, especially if the charges were dismissed or if they were acquitted because now they are undergoing more distress for a crime they didn't commit. Reputations are easy to destroy and harder to rebuild and it's better if the neighbors or employers don't know if they were arrested, particularly if they were arrested for a crime they did not commit. You can tell people all day long that you are a good, trust worthy person but if they are looking at your mug shot online it is exponentially harder to convince them to trust you because of the stigma that comes with breaking the law, regardless of whether you actually broke the law or not. Even if they were sentenced does not mean that they should have their mug shot posted with the intent to harass them. People with criminal records are just that-- people. The majority of people with criminal records were arrested for much smaller crimes than rape or murder, and they should be allowed to put their mistakes behind them and try to overcome their past after they have served their sentence. Having those who are requesting mug shots swear under oath provides a good deterrent for those who might use the photo to harm the individual photographed although, on the abyss that is the Internet, it may be difficult to track down exactly who uploaded the mug shot. I also suggest that there should be a fee to obtain the photo, say $15 or $20. A monetary fee would also provide a deterrent to those who were casually interested in the mug shot. I just think that the reputations and privacy of those who have been arrested, regardless of whether they were convicted or acquitted, should be protected because that record does not inherently make them bad people and they should not be subjected to public ridicule.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tara in that it is easy to destroy reputations and very challenging to rebuild them. However, if mugshots are public documents, then I do believe they should be able to be distributed within the public, as people see fit. I feel badly for the people that didn't actually commit the crimes, but it seems to me that these mugshot listing websites would state they were acquitted. Maybe not, I do not frequent mugshots.com, but if there were some sort of way to know people were innocent, then I think that would be appropriate. Other than that, I feel as if keeping the records public would do nothing more than possible deter crime, so as to avoid public shame and scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where I stand on this policy. If people are not charged with a crime, they shouldn't have anything to worry about. However, if a mugshot website were to have the person who wasn't charged pay to remove their mugshot, I think it's like extortion.
ReplyDeleteLike mentioned in question, this may set a dangerous precedent. Anyone should be able to have access to public records and not have to explain to a government agency what they want to do with it. This affects the media as well as everyday people.
This is an interesting predicament. I see both sides and share Junkang's sentiment that I am not sure where I stand on this policy. My first reaction was that I was okay with the Utah law. For me, this seems a little like the "right to be forgotten" for those individuals who were found innocent. I do think it is important to not misrepresent people with irrelevant information on the internet, and I think this falls under that category. On the other hand, this is a public record. I am concerned that this law could create a trend of withholding public information, which is my only hesitation on this law.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Diana said about the difficulty of this situation. I believe that there are pros and cons to both sides of the argument. But, I agree with Junkang that were someone to get into the habit of posting mugshots (especially of those who were acquitted, had charges dropped, etc.) only to try to score some money in exchange for taking them down, it would be like extortion. I also agree that this may be a potentially dangerous precedent to set. Because the mugshots are public record, there shouldn't be any restrictions on their use. As it has been mentioned, a booking and mugshot does not automatically mean a conviction, and as Anne said, there is probably a way to know or find out if the person was convicted of a crime or not. If there were an instance where someone was misrepresented on a website as being convicted when in reality they were not, we have already discussed that this is a breech of a privacy tort. Specifically, it would be the tort of casting someone in a false light.
ReplyDeleteI think Utah's policy is sound policy, although I can think of an alternative which might be better. I haven't thought about all the details, but what if mugshots were not entered into the public domain until the person in the mugshot has been convicted. Thus people who are wrongly accused are safe from their mugshots being published while people who believe that mugshots should be public domain (I'm assuming for public safety reasons, doesn't really make sense to me) are still satisfied.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think this falls under painting someone in a false light. Mug shots are important and they are public record for a reason but they also clump all criminal classes together. People see a mug shot and see the face of a criminal. Although I hesitate on endorsing a policy that limits what can be done with public records these websites make criminals into victims and counter measures need to be taken.
ReplyDeleteMy position on this policy most closely echoes what Sheyne has written above. I see no major objection to this policy and I do not buy into the idea that requiring one to not post such damaging information on fee charging websites creates a dangerous precedent. The potential for abuse I see as very limited. However, I also do believe that it is important that mugshots are not made public until the individual is convicted, and perhaps the severity of the conviction could play into whether/how long the mugshot stays publicly listed by the state.
ReplyDeleteI think the important thing to remember here when considering the validity and the repercussions of this policy is that persons accused of a crime are considered innocent until they are proven guilty. With that in mind, I feel that this policy is a sound policy because it prevents someone making money off another person's misfortune. However, the bigger issue at hand is the issue of whether someone's mugshot should even be a public matter. Personally, I do believe that mugshots and crime records should be publicly available, but should have clarifications such as when the person was convicted, the outcome of the trial, and other important facts. I think this is essential because even though having a criminal conviction attached to your name can cause others to judge you, it is the right of others to know if you have trespassed society's boundaries.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Utah’s mug shot policy, but think it should be amended. It allows legal accountability for those who seek to extort those who have been charged of a crime. While mug shots are public record and should be accessible, the distinction that a mug shot does not necessarily equate to conviction or guilt may be lost on many people. Having a public mug shot, even without a conviction, is still damaging to one’s image. While the website can come with a disclaimer that not all people with mug shots are guilty, it would be naïve to think that everybody can make that distinction, especially unconsciously. This results in a prejudice – that the person with the mug shot is guilty of at least some crime (affirming the consequent in non sequiter logic - because criminals have mug shots, people with mug shots are criminals), and are therefore classified as a criminal. In the schemas of most people, a criminal is someone who is inherently bad, although this perception does vary with the person’s gender and ethnicity. Because of the association of mug shots with guilt, the perception of those who are never charged or convicted is still that they are guilty. Because of this, while Utah’s mug shot policy is a good start, amendments should be made to further the protection of those who are not guilty of the crime for which their mug shot was taken.
ReplyDeleteI stand wholly on the side of the law. My reasons mirror Junkang's extortion argument, with an added assertion that people should be in control of their image. In this sense, I mean "image" meaning photograph. I believe that someone's photograph is far too closely linked to their person, to who they are in real life, to be thrown in the same basket as their name in a database or a description of something they've done. I find the idea of someone making money off of a photograph of me to be offensive, and the proposition of me having to pay money to remove this photo even more so. People that oppose this law claim that it sets a dangerous precedent for having to explain what you plan to do with public information. I can't disagree more. If the requirement to retrieve a mugshot is to swear that you won't use it improperly, then I see absolutely no way that could be construed into "the government demanding to know what someone intends to do with public information". To me, that seems akin to saying that, because the government expects you to follow the speed limit, they're demanding that you report to them your location whenever you drive your car.
ReplyDelete