Mugshots are not a good look for anyone
By Larry and Sandy . . . After all the hoopla over the past several days regarding the booking of former president Donald Trump, NARSOL agrees with a recent article published by Reason Magazine. Mugshots are not taken for the purpose of humiliating an accused person before they’ve been convicted of the accusations. Unfortunately, that is how they are often used in the modern era.
We have no desire to get into the issues of the allegations against Trump or any of the other defendants. Our concern is for everyone accused of a crime, including those who were booked and photographed in Fulton County, Georgia, over the past few days. Those particular accusations will be decided by the courts at some point in the future. Until the time the charges against each defendant have been resolved, each of them, including Trump, should be presumed innocent.
Rather than the charges, NARSOL is focused on the public policy ramifications of publishing mugshots upon an arrest. According to Reason Magazine, that is the reason why the media should decline to publish such photos and why governments should limit their release.
Taken on what may well be the lowest point of one’s life, they are virtually guaranteed to portray the accused as looking like the worst criminal who ever lived. There have been instances where individuals have lost their careers and been forced to expend tens of thousands of dollars defending against weak or unfounded allegations.
NARSOL wholeheartedly agrees that the defendants in the Georgia indictment should not be held to a different standard than other criminal defendants. Our position is that we would like to see the system itself reformed. It is important to point out that most if not all of those facing charges in Georgia have the financial resources to pay for their defense teams. We seek change for those without huge financial holdings and political connections, those who stand to lose their livelihood by having their faces published along with salacious speculation. This totally contradicts the “presumption of innocence” which has been held dear by most Americans since our founding.
We seek change for those against whom spurious accusations of sexual impropriety have been made. More than any other, the accusation of being a “sex offender” wreaks havoc, as much as an actual guilty plea or verdict. More than any other, the accusation of having committed any sexual impropriety guarantees the loss of the presumption of innocence. The publication of mugshots, often the staple of “vigilante” web sites and You-Tube sound-bites, lingers long after the false accusation is recanted, the mistaken identity is corrected, or the innocent person is vindicated.
Billy Binion, the author of the Reason piece, unknowingly describes those for whom we seek change. He writes that the standard itself, the practice itself, needs to change for “people who are much less powerful and who stand to lose much more by having their faces splashed across the press before they’ve had a chance to state their case.” He says that, regardless of Trump’s mugshots being out there, he would bounce back. Binion concludes, “Others in his situation, whose names you’ll never hear, might not.” And, I will add, often don’t.
According to Reason Magazine, some states are moving to limit the release of mugshots prior to a conviction. Reason mentioned that last year Louisiana passed a law restricting law enforcement’s ability to release certain mugshots pre-conviction for nonviolent crimes. They stated that there are several exceptions in place for more serious crimes and if the person in question is deemed a fugitive. It is unclear which crimes are deemed “serious,” but we can assume that sexual offenses – virtually all sexual offenses– are on that list. Reason also pointed out that other states, including Arkansas, Florida, Montana, New York, and California, have implemented various restrictions against the unfettered access to and publication of mugshots.
This is action whose time has come. As long ago as 2014 concerns were raised about the deleterious effect of publishing mugshots. One contributor to the article wrote that the public displaying of mugshots “ . . . would likely not exist if not for the punitive urge to view, consume, judge, and mock the misfortune of others. This reveals the ways in which punishment escapes the courtroom and prison to saturate everyday life.”
NARSOL believes that limiting access to mugshots prior to a criminal conviction can be achieved with bipartisan support. This is important because an issue that gains bipartisan support has become exceedingly rare in recent years. We are cautiously optimistic based on the fact that the list of states that have imposed or are considering such limitations includes both states considered conservative and those considered progressive.
We support and urge our affiliates to work with their legislatures to limit this harmful practice. In addition, there may be an opportunity for Congress to act as well.
Larry is an authority in legal issues, legislative affairs, and policy.
Well, it’s a start. However, it’s centered on only pre-conviction mugshots. Each state registry posts photographs of the offender that are utilized in the same way by online and printed publications, and it harnesses ridicule and hatred, and they are used over and over and over again. Those that view these photos in those publications, many times think of these registry photos as being a fresh mugshot and think the individual in the photo is facing those charges, even if it was from a 20 year old conviction.
Privacy laws continue to be eroded, but regardless of a criminal conviction, why is it continually considered legal to post anyone’s photograph online without their consent? The registry itself, with its mugshots and personal information posted is a violation of privacy. There are legal minds who will say the laws say otherwise that because of the concerns for “public safety”, the registry and its photographs must remain and the individuals who are listed have lost their right to privacy. That argument is a slippery slope for every citizen’s privacy. What can be done to one group of people, will eventually be justified and done to another and then another. Any law that makes that legal should be challenged and appealed to the highest court as many times as necessary until there are privacy laws equally applicable to everyone.
This article about mugshots is a positive step, but it should be considered for all photograph’s being published publicly with no exception made for the registry. The bigger picture here is the privacy of the individual against the public’s right to information.
My 2 cents.
Amen to this!
If we are truly supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, the release of mug shots to the public absolutely clouds judgement.
Worse still are what I consider the evil websites and “businesses” that publish all mug shots and exact a ransom from the alleged perpetrator to have the photos removed. That should be illegal in my eyes.
No mug shot should be released until after a court or juries decision of guilt or innocence.
There are people that are dead and some who did not even commit a crime or there charges were dismissed and still on those mug shot sites. Those sites get paid for advertisers to place ads on the sites. So they are making money off of us, thus making money off the registry which is illegal but rarely enforced.
The foundation of our criminal justice system is that every American citizen, without exception, is the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” If a person is so dangerous, as determined by the courts, that the person is a threat to public safety, then they should not be released on bail. At no time should their picture mugshot) should not be published. As a journalist educated in the 70’s this was common knowledge, at least among responsible journalists. As it applies to those accused of sex offenses, to publish a mugshot usually results in termination of employment, loss of family and friends, loss of social status… the list of consequences goes on and on.
The general public would be better served if we all defend each other’s rights fiercely and diligently. Only then will justice be served and our basic freedoms protected.
So the state of Oregon can no longer have inmate photos posted on there website. There was a law for this that Is preventing them to do so.
Going back a couple years now. But the registry. Is able to post pass and Current photos for some reason 🙁
I agree with all that you said. However, equal justice equals equal treatment. I’ve never known or seen anyone who was arrested for anything whose photo was taken in a suit and tie. I didn’t have the option of being bailed out before being arrested and I never met anyone else who was afforded such.
Evidently there are at least two systems of justice in the US. You know above all people that anyone charged with a sex offense is treated differently from the moment of arrest. No person accused of a so called “white collar” crime is ever treated the same as most in the system.
I did my once a year mug shot for the sor. I showed up in a 800 dollar tux. Nice haircut. Crisp as a 100 dollar bill. I could see that rubbed the officer the wrong way but they did the picture regardless.
Great post and thoughts with it. For context, below is the description from Wikipedia about mug shots (and there is more if one wants to read it there), which makes me wonder, why are PFRs continually having photographs (mug shots?) taken every check in and then having them posted? It seems they are not the same purpose as a mug shot was intended. Should not those who have offended under other statutes not also have their photos taken so anyone can ID them later if need be? Rhetorical question of course…
“A mug shot or mugshot (an informal term for police photograph or booking photograph) is a photographic portrait of a person from the shoulders up, typically taken after a person is arrested.[1][2] The original purpose of the mug shot was to allow law enforcement to have a photographic record of an arrested individual to allow for identification by victims, the public and investigators. However, in the United States, entrepreneurs have recently begun to monetize these public records via the mug shot publishing industry.
Photographing of criminals began in the 1840s only a few years after the invention of photography, but it was not until 1888 that French police officer Alphonse Bertillon standardized the process. ”
(I’d hate to think of the montage or collection of photos I have with the PD from my arrest to now when I check in to see how much I have actually aged and had weight fluctuations.)
Well, this is a freedom of information issue. Freedom of something . Once having taken the mugshot, it is government information that we should have access to. But so then, stop mug-shots pre-coviction. Fixed. Of course that will cut down on pretrial detention. Which is horribly over-used.
Well it is a far cry from being a Glamor shot. I have gotten my picture taken more times for the registry, now that I have been on the registry since 1997, than all the photos of me combined in my lifetime.
No other Ex-felons have to get an updated photo unless they commit another crime.