Mug Shot Nation

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

Thanks to those 14 million annual arrestees, there is plenty of room for these newspapers to grow. But are all mug shots fit to print? Public shaming may represent a cost-effective alternative to traditional forms of sentencing, and as public shaming goes, having your mug shot appear on a police department website actually sounds a lot more agreeable than, say, standing outside a Walgreen’s with a sign identifying you as a shoplifter.

If you do end up in front of that Walgreen’s, however, you’ve also spent some time in front of a judge or jury, who ultimately found you guilty. With mug shots, that’s not necessarily the case. The city of St. Paul, Minnesota, which started publishing photographs of prostitution arrestees in print in the 1980s and brought its operation to the web in 1997, is regarded as the pioneer of online public humiliation. Following its lead, an ever-expanding list of law enforcement agencies now post mug shots of the people they arrest—but don’t necessarily convict—in an explicit effort to deter crime.

In general, mug shots have always carried the heavy suggestion of guilt, as if getting caught in the act of being arrested is tantamount to getting caught in the act of committing a crime. It isn’t, though, and that’s one reason why, until about 10 years ago, many law enforcement agencies were reluctant to release mug shots to the press or the public, unless prompted by a Freedom of Information Act request or, in extreme cases, a lawsuit. In the Internet era, that has changed radically. In 1996 the Peoria, Illinois, police department refused to grant access to its mug shots until the city was sued by a local attorney who wanted to publish photos of people who’d been arrested for soliciting prostitutes. By 2005 the department was publishing photos of arrested johns and prostitutes itself, on the city’s official website.

Like most of these sites, Peoria’s is careful to include a disclaimer that the individuals depicted on it are “presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” But if there’s a chance that the people on display there haven’t committed a crime, why are they being punished? As soon as a law enforcement agency presents its online rogues’ gallery as a form of deterrence, it transforms the pictures into a form of punishment as well. If appearing in this context is a fate so unpleasant that it can persuade other people to avoid engaging in illicit behavior, then surely it constitutes a penalty. And it’s a penalty that’s being applied without the hassle of due process.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print