Debate:Are mugshots inhumane?

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by Blake Gripling.

Proposition

To censor or not to censor? That is the question.

Following the arrest of pastor-cum-arrested sex offender Apollo Quiboloy, there has been controversy and outcry over the Philippine National Police (PNP) censoring mugshots which led to the country's interior minister to release uncensored versions likely in an effort to assauge concerns about any possible coverup or conspiracy, e.g. a body double in place of the actual perp.

The PNP defended their stance on the issue, stating that they did so to protect the dignity of the accused in compliance with the directive issued by the Philippines' Commission on Human Rights; but to me this sounds rather sus at best as it only invoked the Streisand effect with the above-mentioned interior minister's disclosure of what the public really wanted. Not to mention that, while I am not in any way a legal expert, there has been at least some legal precedent over the depiction of public figures, like when an Australian production company for a political miniseries was sued by senator Juan Ponce Enrile as he did not approve of his depiction in said work on privacy grounds, only for the Philippine Supreme Court to favour the strayans as Enrile is a public figure and thereby people are free to portray him in a work of fiction particularly of matters of public interest.

In line with this, are mugshots a necessary evil or should authorities observe prudence and discretion with using them as what the CHR sternly mandated? We've had high profile perps in the US mugshotted like Justin Timberlake, Paris Hilton and so on, and when I asked @Arcadium Trancefer about it, he accused the CHR of being overly-PC moonbats and found next to no complaints about the use of public portraits for suspects and convicted felons; yet part of me does agree with the CHR at least to some extent as we do have a litany of human rights issues in the country that we're sadly struggling to address.

Mugshots can fuck someone's life up permanently, even for something as minor as shoplifting. I don't see why having at least some privacy protections in place is so unreasonable. Public interest can be argued to override such protections in some cases, I think, but that's a slippery slope. Carthage (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, a mug of a public figure is of no issue as there's little to no point of censoring someone everyone knows, but even that has its pitfalls as a celebrity who wanted nothing to do with their past crimes and is seeking to move on with their life could cry afoul of said shots and have them withheld. This also led me to the issue of the concept of sex offender registries, particularly in terms of fucking up not just the perpetrator's life permanently, but invokes guilt by association towards even the offender's relatives who may not approve of what their relative had done. A sex offender's immediate cousin or sibling could get ostracised just because their relative is in the registry regardless of their abhorrence towards their disgraced relative's actions. Blakegripling ph (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, as I said before, the problem with CHR's directive is that censoring public figures' faces could lead to a perverse incentive e.g. cranks such as conspiracy theorists spuriously alleging a coverup going on hence the pixelation. While we do get that a one-time shoplifter could end up living their life in misery for the rest of their days because of a judgemental society's response to a simple infraction hence the need to protect their dignity, there is a risk that such good-intentioned moves could backfire at the expense of us progressives and thus lead to even more crankery. Blakegripling ph (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking actually of how in defamation suits public figures have a much higher bar to clear than non-public figures when I wrote "public interest can be argued to override such protections in some cases." As you say, public figures are a different matter than average Joe #687378383. Carthage (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Celebrities are a special case indeed, especially as they do have a reputation to protect (unless if you somehow developed immunity to backlash e.g. Mike Tyson). Indeed, the easiest way to get the proverbial lynch mob on you is to rape or sexually violate someone or a group of people as in the case of disgraced Lostprophets frontman Ian Watkins, or at least condone such acts. As much as we would like to treat convicts fairly and all, how would one muster the conscience to observe humanitarian gestures towards a rapist, particularly a prominent one such as Quiboloy? Surely, dragging him on a parade of shame is arguably medieval and shameful, much more if he gets lynched Mussolini-style, but at the same time, informing the public of his fate isn't wrong so as long as he and his offences are presented in a manner consistent with the country's bill of rights. Blakegripling ph (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

"Celebrities are a special case indeed, especially as they do have a reputation to protect" Everyone has a livelihood and reputation to protect. I strongly disagree with granting celebrities any special privilege in public matters like this. Accumulator (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that since they have even more of a reputation to protect compared to a rank-and-file person, they ought to know all along that they should keep themselves in check so as not to be subject to such humilating spectacles. Blakegripling ph (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how it works in the Philippines, but if trials are public and court records records are public then why should mugshots be censored? Accumulator (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The human rights council here says it's done for the sake of preserving the perp's dignity. I get their intention but the execution seems wrong at least in some way. Blakegripling ph (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

His article does not suggest that he is so concerned for the dignity of others: "The indictment claims that Quiboloy allegedly coerced girls as young as eleven and young women to have sex with him, as well as running a sex trafficking operation that threatened victims under the pain of "eternal damnation" should the victims refuse to comply." Accumulator (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth then? :P As I said, as much as we do advocate for human rights, I do admit that you'd be hard-pressed to give a heinous fiend like him any sort of humanitarian treatment, let alone sympathy. Blakegripling ph (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the debate here. Publishing someone's mugshot does not usually pose a moral dilemma. His public image is not a humanitarian issue. If someone does horrible things then they deserve a horrible reputation. Accumulator (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, hence why Arcadium felt that the CHR is run by moonbats with how lily-livered they are when it comes to suspects' rights. That being said, is mugshot censorship justifiable if the mugs could potentially lead to unfair humiliation on part of an ordinary detainee as what Carthage argued? Everyone has a fair chance at reforming themselves; yet some are just plain "irredeemable monsters" like what Anna said in Frozen II. Blakegripling ph (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Publish all of them or publish none of them. To withhold some but release others at the discretion of whoever does not seem to be in the spirit of equal justice under the law. Assuming he's guilty and they have a solid case, then after a speedy and public trial he should probably be dropped through a trapdoor with a rope around his neck. Accumulator (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, this might explain it; he's an associate of Rodrigo Duterte. All of my points still apply, though. Accumulator (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

why would you release mugshots in there first place? in the uk mugshots can only be released if the person was convicted, and only then if they handed down a custodial sentence. they are not released as a matter of due course either and only will generally be released for specific purposes. if there is a threat to peoples lives from releasing a mug shot it will not be released. when police do release mugshots, they can only used for publication or broadcast in connection to conviction or sentencing. to reuse the mugshots for any other use in the media, permission must be sought from the police.

what doesnt happen is releasing mug shots of people who have only been arrested or only charged. a conviction has to have taken place. else you are publishing photos of innocent people until a conviction has been secured. if you are never convicted, you can ask the police to destroy the photos. there is a question mark on if the police are even allowed to keep hold of mugshots at all in police databases of people who are never convicted of a crime or if they should destroy them as a matter of course..

the case in the philipines involves someone who has not yet been convicted. i dont know anything of philipino law, but it does seem a matter of policy to routinely obscure faces of the accused, and the accused have a right to expect this. in my eyes the dubious part of this the release of uncensored photos. why were their rights waived here? this apollo fella has not been convicted. they have a presumption of innocence. plastering photos of their mugshot, which makes every one look as guity sin, along side headlines of crimes they are yet to be convicted of, is enough to produce serious reputational damage that wont be fixed by a not guilty verdict. if the crime is severe enough, someones personal safety could be threatened, while the court of public opinion can make your name for years to come toxic just by the mere association with the crime, innocent not. this kind of thing ruins lives.

it doesnt matter if it is a celebrity or not. it does not matter that we might not like them or not, and it does not matter that we think they are in our opinions clearly guilty. until convicted they are innocent and should have an expectation that their rights will not be breached. this is not some orwellian censorship, and the streisand effect is not relevant (it is never of any relevance) here. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I do understand what you mean, but justice is a public matter. Are they going to hold him until the trial is over? If not then it seems reasonable to make a recent photo available to the public, who have to look out for themselves. Accumulator (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

So how is one supposed to pronounce this dirtbag's name? kwee-bo-loy? kwuh-buh-loy? Accumulator (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's key-boo-loy. Blakegripling ph (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

why is it reasonable for the police to make a recent photo available? as i stated this is standard practice. mugshots are not justice. they are not evidence of a crime. they are evidence of arrest. they have no baring on the deciding of innocence or guilt. they are an administrative tool for police records that hold a lurid fascination for the wider pubic. if there was some danger to the public, as you say, have to look after themselves, then yes a suspect would be held on remand on the grounds of public safety. justice needs to be seen to be done. the trial is a matter of public record, but that does not mean every aspect of a case is made available to public at the outset. typically news media has restrictions on what they can report of the proceedings. speculation and analysis is prohibited in the lead up to trial. you can only report on what was said in court during a trial. these restrictions are essential for justice to take place. they allow for a fair trial where juries are not influenced by a free for for all of tabloid speculation. mug shots would be very good at convincing jurors that someone is guilty before the trial even starts. breaching these restrictions can result in trials collapsing as you cannot ensure news coverage has not influenced the outcome. there is no justice then, and and those responsible get done for contempt. just ask tommy robinson. only after a trial is over a verdict has been reached, and it can no longer be influence the outcome is restrictions on news media lifted, the police can release relevant documents, mugshots included if appropriate. this is when the trial becomes a matter of public record. even then there are restrictions. children and victims of sexual violence are the more obvious examples of what is still not allowed to be reported in the press

You should probably be taking it up with the news media then. I'm sure the cops don't want to deal with a riot, and most of the public doesn't seem to care except perhaps when the media whips people up. Actually,I don't think I've ever even seen a mug shot at all, outside the news. Accumulator (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

this is the case in the uk, but similar rules apply in most places with a half way decent justice system. its possible the us doesnt have as many restrictions concerning reporting of on going criminal proceedings, but the us does not have a half way decent justice system. imho AMassiveGay (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think mugshots should only be released if and after someone is found guilty of a violent crime, sex offense, or an action that caused someone’s death (like a DUI fatality). Or if it’s a case involving a current or former public servant, since that’s a matter of public interest. People can be arrested for such bullshit reasons, and there’s no reason to fuck someone’s life up just because they got arrested for something. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Quiboloy's case counts since he is a public figure rubbing elbows with high-ranking politicians. Censoring him would be pointless as I said. Blakegripling ph (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

that hes a public figure with high ranking pals is irrelevant. he had a right not to have his privacy breached. he had the right to not have the indignity of his mugshot in prison fatigues holding up a sign declaring the crimes he is accused posted in the news. mugshots are taken for police records. there is no public interest served in releasing them. that he is a public figure means news media do not need them, as they probably already have photos available as hes not some unknown where the only photos available are the mugshots. government interference that breaches the rights of someone with the presumption of innocence by posting images with them looking guilty as hell and already convicted brings into question how fair a trial they can expect. there is no legitimate reason for this. none at all AMassiveGay (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)