Earlier this week, some news from Clarksville caught my attention. Montgomery County Sheriff John Fuson released a statement communicating his plans to end publishing mugshots on the booking log page of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office website.
An excerpt of the full statement reads as follows:
“Every person has a fundamental right to a fair and impartial trial and are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I believe that the practice of publishing these mugshots undermines that fundamental right. As the public official responsible for the jail and these jail records, I can no longer continue to publish them….the public shaming factor alone on social media outlets and at times in the press clearly highlight this legal disadvantage. With that said, and after heavy thought, I have decided to stop publishing them immediately,”
Insert slow clap here.
For a long time, I’ve struggled with the idea that the worst moments of someone’s life are plastered publicly for the entire community to see on local media outlets (including this one). While some offenses do warrant a picture to be matched with the offense that occurred because it’s in the best interest of public safety, the vast majority of mugshots are for non-violent offenses. In fact, a cursory look at the mugshots for March 22-23 on WBBJ revealed that only two of the ten were for violent offenses. Most of the mugshots were for “failure to appear” or “driving on a revoked/suspended” license. Those are hardly public safety issues, but the damage to a person’s reputation is done once their picture hits the internet.
When the camera flashes moments after a person has been arrested, that image is frozen in time – a digital copy of a scarlet letter branded to a person’s name and reputation. Public mugshots aren’t crime deterrents, but rather salacious click bait and low hanging fruit for local media outlets. Those clicks happen at the expense of someone’s child, spouse, or parent – all who are our fellow community members.
Again, I do believe there are times when a picture is necessary for safety concerns. If there is a homicide or a violent assault, people need to be aware of who is being accused of committing that crime, but that’s also a slippery slope to climb.
Our judicial system is predicated on the fundamental right of due process; that someone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. Not every mugshot is of someone who has been convicted of a crime. In fact, most mugshots are of people who have simply been charged or accused. What happens to the accused when they are proven innocent, but a simple google search of their name reveals a stunned look from the shoulders up while facing the camera. The process for having those images removed is laborious and time-consuming.
While it’s true that arrests are public record (and they absolutely should be), there is nothing that says an image has to willingly be shared with the public when that arrest occurs. Real estate sales and transfers are public record, but a picture of every house or property isn’t plastered on news outlets after the sale is closed.
Several years ago, I conducted an informal study on the discrepancy of minorities who were arrested and whose mugshots ticked across my computer screen each time I clicked the right arrow. As I was clicking through the mugshots, I couldn’t help but notice a strategically placed advertisement placed between every five pictures. It was simply a way to gain ad revenue based on clicks simply to see someone’s worst moment. We can do better.
What I found during this informal study is that nearly 80% of the mugshots I viewed were of minorities. Of those minority mugshots, only roughly 15% were connected to a violent crime.
There are separate conversations to be had about the criminal justice system’s effect on minorities, but for the sake of this argument, I just want to stick to this particular point: for people who view mugshots regularly and see this discrepancy, unfair and inaccurate beliefs begin to crystalize about a certain races and their propensity to “commit crimes.” I believe it begins the manifestation of unconscious biases based on an inaccurate presentation of imagery.
I decided to do another quick check to see if this stat still held true in March of 2023. Between the dates of March 17- March 20, 11 out of 13 mugshots were of minorities. Of those 11 people pictured, only two were arrested for a violent crime. Does a person’s mugshot really need to be plastered all over social media because their license was suspended?
Last summer, Louisiana passed a law that reads:
““No law enforcement officer or agency shall publish, release, or disseminate in any format a booking photograph to the public or to a private person or entity unless any of the following occurs:
(a) The individual is a fugitive, and a law enforcement officer or agency determines that releasing or disseminating the booking photograph will assist in apprehending the individual.
(b) A law enforcement officer or agency determines that the individual is an imminent threat to an individual or to public safety and determines that releasing or disseminating the booking photograph will assist in reducing or eliminating the threat.
(c) A judge of a court of competent jurisdiction orders the release or dissemination of the booking photograph based on a finding that the release or dissemination is in furtherance of a legitimate interest.
(d) The individual is convicted of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a crime, lesser crime, or lesser included offense as defined in Article 558 in response to the same crime for which he was arrested or if there is criminal litigation related to the same crime that is pending or reasonably anticipated.”
In 2008, I received two speeding tickets: one in Texas and one in Jackson. I paid the one in Texas right away and completely forgot about the one in Jackson. For the next two years, I went on with my life like nothing had happened. One night in 2011, I got pulled over for a headlight being out. The officer ran my tags and license and found that my license was suspended. He let me go, but said I had to be in court the next morning. I went before the judge and he tossed some heavy fines my way, lectured me a bit, and let me go. I can’t help but acknowledge my privilege and wonder why my face wasn’t used to garner some clicks.
Transparency in government is necessary, but there’s a fine line between transparency and shame. Let’s find that balance if we can.
1 Comment
Comments are closed.