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.

The post Mugshots are not a good look for anyone first appeared on NARSOL.