Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 162 posts

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#41

Post by BitwiseFool »

1_person wrote: post #28
TchoBeer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It _is_ enabled by public mugshots though. You can ban public mugshots, but you can't ban "the culture treating the accused poorly".

I think you actually have that backwards. You can't ban public mugshots and have a free and open society. If arrests can be secret then there is no executive or judicial oversight. 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 matte…

The way I see it, you can either pass a law "banning the pixels" or try to change human nature. Which will be easier and which one will address the issue sooner?

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#42

Post by 1_person »

admax88q wrote: post #8
dfxm12 wrote: post #4

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…

> Plus, if that's an issue we want to solve, then make laws that actually target discrimination because of arrest record. Do you honestly think such laws would be effective?

Considering that the status quo is currently that literally asking the individual and querying the source of truth to confirm the history of an individual directly for the purpose of discrimination are ubiquitous practices... yes, I think such laws would be very effective in reducing discrimination on the basis of criminal and judicial history.

If we have not even said that it is wrong, then it's going to happen. Saying that it is wrong and should stop happening is the first incremental step in reducing its rate of occurrence.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#43

Post by ksdale »

whatshisface wrote: post #38
errantspark wrote: post #5

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…

You can change the law, but there's no plausible path towards making people less judgemental. It's like saying, "speed limits are misguided, what we really need is a culture of safe driving."

I think something like gay rights provides a great example of hundreds of millions of people becoming drastically less judgmental over just a few decades. Of course it involves changes in the law as well, but massive cultural shifts do happen!

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#44

Post by aspaceman »

andrewla wrote: post #39

I like that the proposed bills here are not attempts to force sites to remove mug shots (which seems like a losing battle) but instead just resists posting mug shots at all, which seems like something that police departments have complete control over. Unless it serves a legitimate law enforcement end, either as part of a punishment for being convicted of a crime or to aid the public in the search for a fugitive, it…

My local police department posts mugshots on their Twitter, sends copies to the local newspaper, and types up a detailed report for the local radio station for _every_ _single_ _interaction_.

"John Doe was pulled over by X police Saturday afternoon for a speeding violation. Jane Y was ..."

And every Sunday, the local station plays these. So you know every single person who was pulled over. The vehicle they drive. Etc. Small towns are a special sort of hell.

You get pulled over and your grandma is on your case about it. What's really sad is you get used to hearing "resisting a police officer" as their supposed reason for getting brought in - you'll get one a month usually.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#45

Post by sprite »

aspaceman wrote: post #44
andrewla wrote: post #39

I like that the proposed bills here are not attempts to force sites to remove mug shots (which seems like a losing battle) but instead just resists posting mug shots at all, which seems like something that police departments have complete control over. Unless it serves a legitimate law enforcement end, either as part of a punishment for being convicted of a crime or to aid the public in the search for a fugitive, it…

My local police department posts mugshots on their Twitter, sends copies to the local newspaper, and types up a detailed report for the local radio station for _every_ _single_ _interaction_. "John Doe was pulled over by X police Saturday afternoon for a speeding violation. Jane Y was ..." And every Sunday, the local station plays these. So you know every single person who was pulled over. The vehicle they drive. Etc…

That’s crazy.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#46

Post by BitwiseFool »

moshmosh wrote: post #25
matsemann wrote: post #14

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.

I also think that in the pre-internet world the amount of effort to obtain such public information acted as an effective filter. You actively had to go looking for this information and that involved in-person visits to government buildings and filing paperwork. That gave average people a reasonable degree of cover.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#47

Post by anigbrowl »

dfxm12 wrote: post #32
jollybean wrote: post #3

I'm wary of the fact that mug shots are made and publicized before any facts, objectivity or legal scrutiny, yet they appear to make the person 'look guilty'. I suggest they shouldn't be public information until sentencing, and then only 'valid' or publishable while a person is incarcerated. I think the idea is supposed to be if you 'server your time' you get a chance to have a normal life again.

If you think a mug shot makes someone look guilty, do you not believe someone is innocent until proven guilty? Perhaps that the real issue. People don't understand how the justice system works. People put too much blind faith in cops.

It doesn't matter what you believe. A significant chunk of people will just assume guilt and repeat/propagate the information, whether through naivete or malice. Having a large number of people saying 'X is a criminal' based solely on the existence of the mugshot is a problem.

Some people do it because it fits a political agenda, other people are credulous fools who believe they can see evil by looking at the eyes in a photograph, and of course mugshots are like passport photographs in that they have unflattering direct lighting/straight on posture, subjects are discouraged from smiling etc.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#48

Post by 1_person »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #41
1_person wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you actually have that backwards. You can't ban public mugshots and have a free and open society. If arrests can be secret then there is no executive or judicial oversight. 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 matte…

The way I see it, you can either pass a law "banning the pixels" or try to change human nature. Which will be easier and which one will address the issue sooner?

Either way you're ignoring human nature. The other human nature is the nature of power to corrupt, ignored in reducing the transparency of the judicial and executive processes. I can't think of a single historical or contemporary example of government secrecy which has produced morally consistent outcomes. I do not think such things can exist without eventually corrupting the process they serve.

As I said below in another thread, banning discrimination on the basis of judicial and criminal history would immediately and obviously "change human nature" because the practice of discrimination on the basis of these histories occurs openly as a best practice under standing precedent in almost every area of society.

It's literally on application forms -- how can you NOT think that requiring "the question" to be absent from the form would change the conversation about this kind of discrimination?

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#49

Post by swiley »

aspaceman wrote: post #44
andrewla wrote: post #39

I like that the proposed bills here are not attempts to force sites to remove mug shots (which seems like a losing battle) but instead just resists posting mug shots at all, which seems like something that police departments have complete control over. Unless it serves a legitimate law enforcement end, either as part of a punishment for being convicted of a crime or to aid the public in the search for a fugitive, it…

My local police department posts mugshots on their Twitter, sends copies to the local newspaper, and types up a detailed report for the local radio station for _every_ _single_ _interaction_. "John Doe was pulled over by X police Saturday afternoon for a speeding violation. Jane Y was ..." And every Sunday, the local station plays these. So you know every single person who was pulled over. The vehicle they drive. Etc…

It will end up on the feed the court publishes, so it's not like it isn't public information.

The police could chill out though and not make a bad situation worse.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#50

Post by watwut »

moshmosh wrote: post #25
matsemann wrote: post #14

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.

That don't explain mug shots.
Post reply on HN