21–30 of 162 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
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.
Not sure how that works. Another person taking action between a cause and effect does not remove the cause from being responsible for the effect. For example, if I file a false police report and someone is arrested, I can't claim it isn't my fault because the police should've done a better job checking the report before arresting. The police were part of the cause, but so was my false report.
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).
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-29236...
Part 2 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It _is_ enabled by public mugshots though. You can ban public mugshots, but you can't ban "the culture treating the accused poorly".
You can ban treating them illegally though. There's a difference between embarrassment and discrimination.
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).
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.
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 e…
we should be far far more tolerant of people fucking up.
I'd say we can demonstrate our collective tolerance through efforts like the right to be forgotten and disallowing criminal record questions.
It feels like the perception of how much the average member of society transgresses its rules is totally out of sync with reality.
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…
Mugshots are a form of punishment without being convicted of a crime. The government and police keep plenty of info private before court days, so it can make sense to keep this private too. I think the main reason why they are public is so the police cant just disappear someone when they were arrested for potentially political reasons, and their political supporters can start responding when it happens, same with why…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It _is_ enabled by public mugshots though. You can ban public mugshots, but you can't ban "the culture treating the accused poorly".
But you can make charged and convicted statuses a protected class, and ban its consideration in any context as has been done for other protected classes. After all, if we believe that the process of justice rectifies wrongs, then the matter should be closed when the process has been completed. If we do not believe that the process of justice functionally rehabilitates and fairly rectifies, such that consideration of history beyond the closure of a matter is necessary, then what exactly is the aim of that process?
We could also educate the public about the purpose of the justice system, moral complexity in the assignment of responsibility in the light of historical/social/environmental/economic factors, psychology of criminality and rehabilitation, and the frequency of successful rehabilitation and subsequent significant contribution.
Pixels aren't the problem, the behavior of dehumanization is the problem.
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).
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.
Observations about the difference between theory and practice omitted.
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…
Mugshots are a form of punishment without being convicted of a crime. The government and police keep plenty of info private before court days, so it can make sense to keep this private too. I think the main reason why they are public is so the police cant just disappear someone when they were arrested for potentially political reasons, and their political supporters can start responding when it happens, same with why…