It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mug shots posted on the internet

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
There are several sites listed that post mug shots of people with a criminal past, even if these people have completely turned their lives around. I just don't like it. These sites will remove mug shots, but for a hefty fee, and even then there's no guarantee the mug shots won't appear on other sites.

I know what you're thinking; it's good to keep track of these people, but this means NO ONE is allowed to let their past stay in the past. Everybody needs a second chance at some point in their lives.

www.cnn.com...]http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/29/us/mug-shot-websites/index.html?hpt=hp_c2[editby ]edit on 5/29/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
This is crazy. I think these people are more likely to return to a life of crime if they cant get a normal job because their past is displayed for all to see.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
It's a money-making scam by the owners of these sites. They charge $700 and up to remove you from their site.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
How about attacking their marketing. Sue them for assassination of character, and by them keeping the pictures online, they are infringing on your right to pursue happiness. Well, that may only work in the USA, but you never know until you try.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
It's absurd, and the fact that people can ask for money to take them down makes it extortion.

And then we have....

One in four US adults has a criminal record.

Police agencies should be the only ones with access to criminal past unless the information is obtained through the courts by an individual for an individuals use, unless there is a clear a present danger from someone who already served their time.

ie predators.

Instead, corporations are the ones who benefit the most from having access to public information, which should be for people...not corporate policy.
edit on 29-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
This is crazy. I think these people are more likely to return to a life of crime if they cant get a normal job because their past is displayed for all to see.



Worse than that, when these people can't get a job they'll feel like cornered animals and hunt down the owners of these sites...and kill them. These sites are playing a dangerous game.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


thats the NSA dream of the orwell-internet come true...



for pedophiles - OK (ONLY pedophiles)

otherwise its pillory 2.0 and can destroy lifes, even if they have changed and thats against the basic idea of our law system....







edit on 29-5-2012 by Hessdalen because: mindcontrol



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Good topic, jigger. I would think that it is somewhat unfair that certain types of criminals are,nt allowed to start afresh, if that is indeed their honest intent. Maybe it should depend on the length of their criminal record, especially if they are prone to violence ?

I might find it harder to let paedophiles leave their pasts behind though..Is it fair to say that paedophiles are always a potential risk to children for the rest of their lives, .....I don,t know, for sure. Perhaps each case should be judged separately.

This issue is very much a grey area as I see it, and would be very difficult to make rules about who should / should not be able to make a fresh start.

I think paying a large fee to have their photos removed from the Internet is wrong. Where does that leave a former criminal who is genuinely trying to make a fresh start, but cannot afford to pay for the removal of his mugshot...?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
It's absurd, and the fact that people can ask for money to take them down makes it extortion.

And then we have....

One in four US adults has a criminal record.

Police agencies should be the only ones with access to criminal past unless the information is obtained through the courts by an individual for an individuals use, unless there is a clear a present danger from someone who already served their time.

ie predators.

Instead, corporations are the ones who benefit the most from having access to public information, which should be for people...not corporate policy.
edit on 29-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


As for sexual predators, or even those deemed criminally insane, this is where the law is too weak. Criminals are sent to prison for two reasons: To pay for their crimes, and to remove a threat from society. After they've done their time, if these people are still deemed a threat to society (which should be determined by a panel of 12 psychiatrists) they don't get out. They NEVER get out.

But, those that are released deserve just as much right to get on with their lives without an anchor tied around their necks.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
They legally HAVE to take down
the pictures if you have been found
innocent or nolle prosque/not guilty...
They don't have to take them down
if you have plead guilty or no contest.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj


But, those that are released deserve just as much right to get on with their lives without an anchor tied around their necks.

 


I think that is the most important point. Because if they aren't given an opportunity for the pursuit of happiness or a self sustaining career, society is condemning them beyond the judicial system, making the judicial system a complete farce. Either it is in place of mob punishment and it will suffice, or it is useless and needn't be around at all.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem
They legally HAVE to take down
the pictures if you have been found
innocent or nolle prosque/not guilty...
They don't have to take them down
if you have plead guilty or no contest.


Courts are the public domain, but does not mean that what happens in them needs to be posted on a billboard. And because of the internet, this is essentially what's happening.

Heck, in Canada the public safety minister was in an uproar because someone recently took his marriage records and disseminated them on twitter. Showed that he had sex with his babsitter among other things.. And this is a public official....

Suddenly there was an inquiry in the whole matter to see if the person who released it could be prosecuted or not. I think with an RCMP investigation too.

Guess the public official didn't want his life too public?

But hey, hold on, Joe Blow gets his life scattered around the internet with people asking money for them to take it down and what? No one gives a -snip-
edit on 29-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Mug shots are taken all the time of innocent people.

Exoneration or a dropping of charges doesnt erase that mug shot.

You can be booked in for any number of reasons and released hours later. That shot and those prints are in the system forever now and you dont even have to be charged let alone found guilty.

Not to mention the bureaucracy of the system keeping expunged marks on your record. Nothing quite as bad as having a background check come back with a situation that should have been resolved and removed decades ago because some clerk didnt click the right button. Felony by bureaucracy is a horrible topic all its own.

The "scarlet letter" of this system is the biggest hurdle people have to reclaiming their lives and becoming functional participants of society.

And we wonder why recidivism is so high? When you give them no other choice what else are they going to do?

Records should be closed to all but the courts.
edit on 29-5-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
It makes me sad for these people, especially the ones that are in for drugs.

You can just see the desperation across their faces.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Is it a bit crazy? Yes. Illegal? No.
And your criminal history, if you have one, is public information. Sorry, but thats just how it is.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I am completely aware that mugshots are public record; HOWEVER:


Originally posted by popsmayhem
They legally HAVE to take down
the pictures if you have been found
innocent or nolle prosque/not guilty...
They don't have to take them down
if you have plead guilty or no contest.


But the fact they are charging money--and hefty fees at that--makes this a shady enterprise that i am not sure is legal. THAT is the problem. Making $ off of shaming people.


Originally posted by boncho
It's absurd, and the fact that people can ask for money to take them down makes it extortion.


Exactly.

I do not see how this doesn't get the FED's attention.

Especially people who might have done something wrong, made a mistake, moved on, and now when their name is googled this comes up on page one.

Extortion INDEED.

On a side note, my local paper--every month--posts the complete record of everyone who has been arrested. Crappy paper anyway, they must have little else to print. Most of the charges are petty BS, and there are several pages of print devoted to it and little else. This same edition posts the county's "most wanted" on the front page. These charges typically range from "failure to appear" to other petty crap like "probation violation."

I think it's really sad and a very poor reflection of society when this is what we consider so important: petty "crimes" and BS exposure. Purposefully people who already have a bad enough time. Granted, some of these people should be out in the paper, but people who simply "fail to appear" at a municipal level for a BS traffic violation, it's sickening.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


What about the poor sap that gets caught with his girlfriend in a car, and is charged with lewd conduct and has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. I do however see a need for monitoring Violent Offenders, but to give the community a means to try and intimidate someone, possibly inflict harm on someone? Here is what is going to happen over the next 10 years.

Everyone that is on a list will be removed from it. Their ability to get a job, find a place to live is greatly impacted. Their argument is solely this 'Continuing Civil Disability' a legal term. Either we are going to have to pay them for their 'Civil Disability' or do away with the list altogether.

Another note people are dumb, a person is smart. People see a mugshot they think 'Criminal.' People see someone on the Sex Offender Registry they think 'Pedophile.' In Baltimore there is a Gun Offender Registry. We already have a mug shot registry?! Whats next DUI registry? (Sarcasm.) As I am not a democrat, more conservative than anything, once someone completes their 'debt to society' they should be entitled to a second chance. There should be a period of time to see any recidivism before their chance at life is completely ruined.

This should be debated....

29INFDIV



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
This sucks for people actually trying to start a new life.
Maybe we should start a petition to make it illegal.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Whats amusing about this thread is the fair point, then it immediately flips...
everyone needs a second chance!
oh..except this group..and maybe that group

just stick with the original idea, or drop it all together..we are either a society that allows a second chance, or not...be it sex, violence, drugs, etc...

As a person with no kids, I don't give a care about a sex offender in my neighborhood...especially since its been expanded so much that most sex offenses aren't even physically contacting a child..and even if I was with kids, I would only be slightly concerned about predators.
I am far more concerned about the meth dealers in my neighborhood that may have a bunch of insane people rolling through my neighborhood..that threatens my safety far more.

Thing is, once you start justifying why one group or another is more dangerous and should have no second chance..then you can simply throw out any stance you had to begin with..because your personal views may be valid, and the next guys, etc...

I personally think we need to register every single felon, every single type of felony, or drop them all...because its all unconstitutional endless punishment that we are pushing for...and that will most certainly bite us in the collective arse in the future.

Pedos can't change. Just like violent criminals can't change, just like opportunists cant change, etc..totally false argument. you cannot change the symptoms of something without first diagnosing the problem to begin with...a person whom is violent or sexual deviant is usually that way due to some deeper issue that requires therapy. Prison punishes a symptom and rarely if ever even considers the problem..

So ya...you either stand by the subject matter here, which is seperating and eternally punishing people for something. or you oppose the measure due to allowing for people to reintegrate with society.

But this is a punishment fetish society..so, such discussions will never rationally be discussed by professional therapist...it is in the domain of frantic media drones and politicians trying to win their vote...any professional weighing in is ignored

So, to this website, I say bravo...you are a perfect example of how the US views this subject...push fear onto the public (they love it), and make a few bucks should someone want to have a fair shake at life (only the ones with money deserve a fair shake after all)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719
This sucks for people actually trying to start a new life.
Maybe we should start a petition to make it illegal.


Theoretically the Constitution already makes it illegal..it is punishment that extends past the courts punishment.

But don't expect anyone to stand up for unpopular groups..its not politically calculated...defending the rights of the people never goes well. You can have political ideals, or a political career...the both don't appear to meet.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join