Mugshots.com and similar: Good or bad? (employment, party affiliation, drug)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are many website operators who make a living posting mugshots of people who have been arrested. These records and photos are considered public information. I get that.
Do you think websites that publish mugshots and arrest information are doing a good thing or are they punishing those who have not been convicted, for the entertainment of others? An arrest is NOT a conviction.
Again, I understand these records are considered public information.
I have to admit that I have been arrested, as have some of my friends So, I have a bit of bias here. I got a DUI. I own it and I am not proud of it. I've made a post regarding that so I won't rehash that here.
Is it fair to essentially condemn a person for a one-time screw-up, an accident, a lapse of judgement, or a wrongful arrest? What happens if the charges are dropped?
Assume for a moment the charges were unfounded, a case of mistaken identity, or someone with a grudge: why should someone be subjected to the embarrassment of their mugshot being online forever?
I like that I can find records of convictions online. I'm not a fan of finding dismissed charges online. It is enough that people have to deal with an accusation. Accusations have the ability to ruin someone's life. To have a charge, not a conviction, follow someone is just wrong, in my opinion
I offer this opinion as someone who runs background checks on potential applicants in my rental business. I refuse to use a charge as a reason to deny an applicant a place to live.
Is it fair that a charge follow someone around? Is it fair a that their mugshot is the top result when you search their name in a search engine?
I see the question in the broader context of all the personal info that's available on the internet now, all those people-finder services that make money on people's personal info on the excuse that it's "public information". Now anyone can look anyone up, and I think there are safety concerns there. On the one hand, it's great if you're trying to track down an old friend, and have had no luck by other means. But I don't like it.
So I guess I would file your issue in the same folder, OP. Just because info is in public files doesn't mean you should plaster it on the internet. People used to have to go down to city registrar-type offices, property tax files, and so forth, to get that info, but now everyone can access it with a click. That has pros and cons, and I think I'm leaning toward more privacy.
I see the question in the broader context of all the personal info that's available on the internet now, all those people-finder services that make money on people's personal info on the excuse that it's "public information". Now anyone can look anyone up, and I think there are safety concerns there. On the one hand, it's great if you're trying to track down an old friend, and have had no luck by other means. But I don't like it.
So I guess I would file your issue in the same folder, OP. Just because info is in public files doesn't mean you should plaster it on the internet. People used to have to go down to city registrar-type offices, property tax files, and so forth, to get that info, but now everyone can access it with a click. That has pros and cons, and I think I'm leaning toward more privacy.
This isn't an internet age phenomena. I saw the pulp paper newspaper advertising the weeks mugshots at the gas station checkout counter. I think they're the lowest form of journalism. But, many jobs will terminate your employment based on an arrest, with or without these publications. If you drive for a company in any capacity, and get arrested for a Dui, down you go, unfortunately. I'm sure other charges could result in similar results. I had a teacher arrested for an alleged illicit dalliance; later it proved to be unfounded, but the damage was done, and would you have wanted him teaching your kids, knowing that he was charged with something inappropriate?
I doubt having one's mugshot published on Mugshots online is a good thing for the person arrested, unless one enjoys cringe worthy embarrassment in perpetuity. Protecting personal information or past "screw ups" from future employers, dating partners, or neighbors is no longer possible thanks to the WWW: political party affiliation, divorce, marriage, arrests, real estate purchases, college drunken photos on Facebook, charity donations, employment, even your birthday is available with a few finger taps. Good or not, that is a fact and a permanent change to people's privacy.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 01-12-2016 at 06:40 AM..
I think everyone (meaning potential employers and/or potential spouses or SOs) have a right to protect themselves, but I also think that many people make serious mistakes, and so I think that a mistake should not follow and haunt someone for the rest of his or her life, except in the most grievous instances. (I am thinking about something like child rape).
I think mug shots should be allowed for three years after the offense or after the offender has been released from imprisonment, and then no more. My reasoning is that in three years, either an offender will re-offend (meaning a newer mug shot), it was a one-time thing, or else she or he has reformed.
Its a win lose situation depending on the circumstances. Overall i would support only mugshots of those convicted. For example, lets say some guy is accused of rape and arrested. Later the girl admits she was mad and made the whole thing up to get back at him for cheating and the charges are dropped. Thats great and all but now anyone who searches for this guy immediately sees what he was arrested for and unfairly judges him. No employer who finds this info online would even consider hiring him. In the end his life is ruined over something not even true.
I believe that the way these sites make money is by putting the mugshots up there and then charging a fee to "non-publish" it. So, a guy gets arrested for DUI, up goes his mugshot, and then, if he's sufficiently embarrassed, be pays to have it removed.
Gee, sounds like I'm the only old guy on here who's never had a mug shot taken or been charged with a felony. But you can certainly find my picture on Facebook. You can find out where I live and how much I paid for my house by searching on line property tax records. If I were younger maybe you could find out my GPA in college (hey I was attending in the 60s - no electronic records!). You might even find a 10 year old resume on some job search sites.
I think its a great thing in the sense that I have used that website and have been able to see what alot of porn star chicks that I'm into look like without make-up when they get arrested for stuff like (DUI, beating their boyfriends, drug possession, etc)
There are many website operators who make a living posting mugshots of people who have been arrested. These records and photos are considered public information. I get that.
Do you think websites that publish mugshots and arrest information are doing a good thing or are they punishing those who have not been convicted, for the entertainment of others? An arrest is NOT a conviction.
Again, I understand these records are considered public information.
I have to admit that I have been arrested, as have some of my friends So, I have a bit of bias here. I got a DUI. I own it and I am not proud of it. I've made a post regarding that so I won't rehash that here.
Is it fair to essentially condemn a person for a one-time screw-up, an accident, a lapse of judgement, or a wrongful arrest? What happens if the charges are dropped?
Assume for a moment the charges were unfounded, a case of mistaken identity, or someone with a grudge: why should someone be subjected to the embarrassment of their mugshot being online forever?
I like that I can find records of convictions online. I'm not a fan of finding dismissed charges online. It is enough that people have to deal with an accusation. Accusations have the ability to ruin someone's life. To have a charge, not a conviction, follow someone is just wrong, in my opinion
I offer this opinion as someone who runs background checks on potential applicants in my rental business. I refuse to use a charge as a reason to deny an applicant a place to live.
Is it fair that a charge follow someone around? Is it fair a that their mugshot is the top result when you search their name in a search engine?
An arrest means nothing. It should not become public record unless you are convicted of a crime. If the government releases your photo and you have been acquitted, you should have every right to sue the government for both damages and criminal charges.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
