What are your thoughts on displaying the arrested?

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: SillyOReilly
Example

People are supposed to be innocent before proven guilty.

IMO they should not be publicly shamed simply because they were arrested.

Doesn't stop people from shooting other people in the back.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of information.

no one is aruing that....but rather the necessity of using tax money and government resources to do it.

Money and time can def. be better spent else where.

Do you have anything to back that up? Such as the cost to implement this program and the effects of similar programs elsewhere in the country?

 

[Gunslinger08]

It is ridiculous how many of those are italian.

 

[minendo]

This should just make it that much easier for a mistrial. Jury selection will be a pain in the ass as well.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: minendo
This should just make it that much easier for a mistrial. Jury selection will be a pain in the ass as well.

...why? The jury will already know that they've been arrested.

It's already too easy to get out of DWIs - by (NH) law, "impairment to any degree" should result in a conviction. However, give an attorney $6000, and they'll dance around that for months...

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: minendo
This should just make it that much easier for a mistrial. Jury selection will be a pain in the ass as well.

...why? The jury will already know that they've been arrested.

It's already too easy to get out of DWIs - by (NH) law, "impairment to any degree" should result in a conviction. However, give an attorney $6000, and they'll dance around that for months...

I would assume that it could be argued that the added press time could result in an unfair trial.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of information.

no one is aruing that....but rather the necessity of using tax money and government resources to do it.

Money and time can def. be better spent else where.

Do you have anything to back that up? Such as the cost to implement this program and the effects of similar programs elsewhere in the country?

What data is required here? Communities everywhere have managed fine with it out this. It is cleary an extra bell and whistle or a " nice to have" feature but in no way is this a requirement. If these communities schools have not had budget cuts and there is fat left in the budget then by all means splurge on some of these bells and whistles but I doubt that is case.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: yllus
I think it's dumb. It's publicly shaming the person even after they've served their court-ordered sentence. It's hard enough to rebuild one's life as it is when you have to answer in the affirmative to an employer that you have a criminal record.

Maybe they should think about that before committing the crime.

And it's not publicly shaming. Amused's post is direct and right to the point and explains exactly why it's done.

You realize that it is possible for a person to be arrested without actually having committed a crime, right?

sigh...


The issue here is that is public record. If the govt arrests someone, it is legally bound to tell the people what it has done. It is not public shaming. It's about protecting habeus corpus.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of information.

no one is aruing that....but rather the necessity of using tax money and government resources to do it.

Money and time can def. be better spent else where.

Do you have anything to back that up? Such as the cost to implement this program and the effects of similar programs elsewhere in the country?

What data is required here? Communities everywhere have managed fine with it out this. It is cleary an extra bell and whistle or a " nice to have" feature but in no way is this a requirement. If these communities schools have not had budget cuts and there is fat left in the budget then by all means splurge on some of these bells and whistles but I doubt that is case.

I told you what data I was looking for, and you just confirmed that you were talking out of your ass.

 

[TwiceOver]

My favorite is "Warrant Watch" on the local cable access channel. Fun to see friends and former school mates on there.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of information.

no one is aruing that....but rather the necessity of using tax money and government resources to do it.

Money and time can def. be better spent else where.

Do you have anything to back that up? Such as the cost to implement this program and the effects of similar programs elsewhere in the country?

What data is required here? Communities everywhere have managed fine with it out this. It is cleary an extra bell and whistle or a " nice to have" feature but in no way is this a requirement. If these communities schools have not had budget cuts and there is fat left in the budget then by all means splurge on some of these bells and whistles but I doubt that is case.

I told you what data I was looking for, and you just confirmed that you were talking out of your ass.

I need facts to back up common sense now......ok.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: oddyager

Originally posted by: Wheezer
I see businesses posting the names of people who pass bad checks all the time....perhaps, just perhaps if we as a society would start doing some more "shaming" like this..... incidents of DUI would drop.

It is amazing how people view things.....to oddyager's point:

f you read a stranger's name chances are you aren't going to be able to point out that person on the street.

which is exactly what the offenders are counting on.

"fuck it, so my name is in the paper....no one will know for sure if it is me or not just by a name."

BUT....it is a whole new ballgame if their picture is up there for all the world to see including their neighbors and friends....THEN they will perhaps take it a bit more seriously.

We all know that drinking and driving is a bad thing, and people KNOW they should not do it, if for nothing else for fear of getting caught, but it does not stop them....but if public shaming stops one person from repeating the same behavior and saving the life of an innocent person then that seems to me at least to be a GOOD thing. We all know that traffic accidents especially those involving alcohol are at unacceptable levels and so I see nothing wrong with finding alternative ways to fight it....including this.

Right on. You can post a person's picture for all I care if convicted guilty but what about those that were under suspicion but ultimately found innocent? Or mistakenly arrested. Bad enough they had to go through humiliation in the first place of being detained, questioned but to now have their picture out in public?

well, FIRST of all, most DUI are thrown out on a technicality and a really good attorney who does this kind of crap day in and day out and make a pile of money off stupid people, OR they are plead down to reckless op which is usually he case and the offenders get off with fines, community service and probation.

That does not mean they are not guilty of DUI/DWI.

If a cop pulls you over, he smells the booze on you, (and lets face it...if you have ever been completely sober around someone who has been drinking you can smell if pretty damn easy) AND you blow higher than the limit, AND you fail the sobriety test, well it's a pretty safe bet...you are DUI.

No one pitches a bitch about COPS.....they chase criminals all the time ON CAMERA and no one is complaining about their faces on NATIONAL t.v. simply because they are "innocent until proven guilty"....you watch the show, you see someone stumble all over the fucking place AFTER they have been weaving all over the road you get to witness first hand that they failed and yet you don't scream at the television or call Fox broadcasting about their names and faces on television to complain about "due process".....do you?

This is absolutely no different.

If it makes you feel better request that a disclaimer be posted above the pictures.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

well, FIRST of all, most DUI are thrown out on a technicality and a really good attorney who does this kind of crap day in and day out and make a pile of money off stupid people, OR they are plead down to reckless op which is usually he case and the offenders get off with fines, community service and probation.

EXTREMELY FALSE STATEMENT. You blow over your limit and you are convicted almost 100% of the time, no matter how perfect you were on roadside, how perfect you were driving, etc.

Most of the attorney's that can win and contest this kind of thing will tell you it's better to pay it out for a 1st time conviction. You are looking at about $10k to just starting the fight. Paying it out is about $5k.

While you are contesting your conviction you CANNOT drive at all. No work permit, nada. Here in Florida the average time to complete is about a year. You don't win you are out that money + you have to start the process over at Day 1.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of information.

no one is aruing that....but rather the necessity of using tax money and government resources to do it.

Money and time can def. be better spent else where.

Do you have anything to back that up? Such as the cost to implement this program and the effects of similar programs elsewhere in the country?

What data is required here? Communities everywhere have managed fine with it out this. It is cleary an extra bell and whistle or a " nice to have" feature but in no way is this a requirement. If these communities schools have not had budget cuts and there is fat left in the budget then by all means splurge on some of these bells and whistles but I doubt that is case.

I told you what data I was looking for, and you just confirmed that you were talking out of your ass.

newspapers are not supported with taxes. The jail database is just accessed. All jails have these types of databases in place...the newspaper doesn't have access to the fingerprints and other private information.

I think civilians can also gain access to this database. The infrastructure is already in place and chances are the newspapers are paying a subscription fee.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I guess it depends on how they were arrested and what they were arrested for.

Example: Police catch a man in the act of exposing himself to kids, definitely should put his pedo butt on website.

So it's ok to selectively impose laws? Well shit how about only whites can drink from this here water fountain?

So even though he was "caught in the act" but hasn't been proven guilty it's ok. I see how you are. It all makes sense now.

edit: teehee grammar fixed. lol

 

[Baked]

Did you miss the P&N again?

Innocent before proven guilty? Gimme a break. If they weren't jacking somebody's car, robbing somebody's house, or killing some white coed in the 1st place, they wouldn't be be arrested and have their mug shot taken.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of information.

no one is aruing that....but rather the necessity of using tax money and government resources to do it.

Money and time can def. be better spent else where.

Where? providing health care for border babies?

 

[lokiju]

I don't like it.

If they're convicted of a crime, go ahead and show their pictures.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of information.

no one is aruing that....but rather the necessity of using tax money and government resources to do it.

Money and time can def. be better spent else where.

Do you have anything to back that up? Such as the cost to implement this program and the effects of similar programs elsewhere in the country?

What data is required here? Communities everywhere have managed fine with it out this. It is cleary an extra bell and whistle or a " nice to have" feature but in no way is this a requirement. If these communities schools have not had budget cuts and there is fat left in the budget then by all means splurge on some of these bells and whistles but I doubt that is case.

I told you what data I was looking for, and you just confirmed that you were talking out of your ass.

I need facts to back up common sense now......ok.

It's not common sense. You're making assumptions that have no basis. You're saying this money would be better spent elsewhere, when you have no idea how much money you're talking about. It's entirely possible that the program costs are low enough and the effectiveness is high enough that the program more than pays for itself. I'm not claiming that it does, because I don't know. And neither do you. And that's my point.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Wheezer

well, FIRST of all, most DUI are thrown out on a technicality and a really good attorney who does this kind of crap day in and day out and make a pile of money off stupid people, OR they are plead down to reckless op which is usually he case and the offenders get off with fines, community service and probation.

EXTREMELY FALSE STATEMENT. You blow over your limit and you are convicted almost 100% of the time, no matter how perfect you were on roadside, how perfect you were driving, etc.

Most of the attorney's that can win and contest this kind of thing will tell you it's better to pay it out for a 1st time conviction. You are looking at about $10k to just starting the fight. Paying it out is about $5k.

While you are contesting your conviction you CANNOT drive at all. No work permit, nada. Here in Florida the average time to complete is about a year. You don't win you are out that money + you have to start the process over at Day 1.

Well, I cannot count on 2 hands the number of people I have known through the years who have bragged about getting out of DUI because "such and such lawyer managed to get me out of it" they faced no jail time and were simply fined and given probation with community service and a weekend trip to the local rehab treatment center.

Of course it will vary from area to area but that is not the topic and that is not what my main point was...the main point of my response to the meat of his statement was that people are "innocent until proven guilty" nd thier faces should not be posted.....which is complete bullshit.

Just because you get out of it in court does not mean that you did not do the deed.

If the cop pulls you over under suspicion and you fail the breathalyzer, and the field sobriety test, it is a safe bet you are DUI and should have your face plastered in the web for all to see and ridicule.

 

[PepePeru]

i've no problem with this if you've been convicted of a felony.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: G Wizard
i've no problem with this if you've been convicted of a felony.

But she said she was 18. It's just not fair man.

 

[SillyOReilly]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SillyOReilly

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of information.

You just succinctly trumped my entire point. :roll:

Were you rolling your eyes at Amused or at yourself? Because he did make a good point. You didn't. Having your picture put on a website does not indicate guilt any more than having your name put in the paper, which has been happening for decades (probably as long as newspapers have existed).

He made a good point, in your opinion.

Opinions don't hold up in court.

His blunt reply needed more of an explanation, but I guess you didn't think of that.

Here's another :roll: and neither of them were at myself.

 

[Captante]

The responses in this thread just prove the theory true that the best way to strip people of their rights is to do it in a way that appears to target an unpopular minority.

 

[pstylesss]

You have always been able to call up your jail and request a jail roster. Now it's available online. No big deal.