What are your thoughts on displaying the arrested?

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

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.

Well first you know a statistically improbably amount of people that were convicted of DUI's.

Jail time is almost never given in 1st time DUI's anyway...those lawyers more or less got them what EVERYONE gets anyway (comm. serv/required meetings) the only difference is all your friends paid a lot more by having an attorney and started on their 'time' later due to fighting it.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Descartes
Just a modern form of the idea of a jailbird.

I object to it on principle as I do with all the other modern methods of putting shame on people in public. I don't think it addresses the real issues, as the only purpose really seems to be to satisfy those putting on the shame.

But this is different, isn't it? These people haven't even been found guilty in court yet. You can arrest someone, drag their name through the mud by showing their mugshot in the newspaper, and then have the person be found innocent. Yet their reputation is still tarnished.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: 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.

<tap, tap, tap> is this thing working? I just put new batteries in it...

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Descartes
Just a modern form of the idea of a jailbird.

I object to it on principle as I do with all the other modern methods of putting shame on people in public. I don't think it addresses the real issues, as the only purpose really seems to be to satisfy those putting on the shame.

But this is different, isn't it? These people haven't even been found guilty in court yet. You can arrest someone, drag their name through the mud by showing their mugshot in the newspaper, and then have the person be found innocent. Yet their reputation is still tarnished.

I have no problem in the slightest with posting pics of anyone CONVICTED of a crime, but just being arrested does NOT equal guilt. (regardless of what Baked says)
I'm sure that in a perfect world, the cops wouldn't arrest anyone who wasn't guilty of the charges, the guilty would be convicted every time for the crimes they were charged with, and only guilty people would be sentenced to jail, prison, or the Death Penalty.

HOWEVER, this is far from being a perfect world.
Cops make mistakes, they charge the wrong person for a variety of reasons, whether it be a cover-up, revenge, or just because they HAVE to charge SOMEONE for the crime.
Innocent people get convicted every day...don't believe me? Just ask them.
The newspapers have reports rather frequently about some poor SOB who has been in prison for XYZ years, only to be exonerated by new evidence.
Having a photo of yourself posted as being charged for a crime COULD end a promising career, even if the charges were later dismissed or you were found not guilty.
The damage has already been done.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of information.

bill of rights

 

[So]

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.

Why does every discussion of crime immediately jump to pedophilia. It seems we need yet another corollary to Godwin's law.

 

[SillyOReilly]

Wow.

http://www.ktar.com/?sid=629655&nid=237&pid=88

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: So

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.

Why does every discussion of crime immediately jump to pedophilia. It seems we need yet another corollary to Godwin's law.

this

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: 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.

Why use 300 words when you only need three? He effectively made his point. This is information that anyone can obtain, they're just making it easier.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of information.

bill of rights...

...has nothing to do with the freedom of information. You might even say they're supported by the 1st amendment - freedom of the press.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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.

No one's rights are being stripped here. Quite the opposite. Nor is this something new.

To say that the govt should not be required to publish the names of the arrested is to say that the govt should be able to arrest people in secret.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom of information.

bill of rights

Habeas corpus