With the best of intentions the state Legislature is moving forward with a bill which, if passed into law, would ban the distribution of mug shots of suspects until the defendant is convicted.
At first look it sounds fair. The existence of a mug shot is not proof of a conviction, let alone guilt.
In a ‘justification” of the bill its backers in the Senate write:
“In recent years, booking photographs, or ‘mug shots’ as they are commonly known, have become available on the Internet. The mug shots are often released by police departments to local newspapers and other media. Following the release of mug shots to the press, Internet website owners and operators search local newspapers for mug shots to post on their websites. These owners may also obtain the mug shots from filing requests for public records. These websites are often the first results when an individual is looked up on search engines.”
It’s true that mug shots can go viral on the Internet in just a few moments. If the charges are dropped or the defendant is found innocent, there is no way to call the mug shot back. And now there are some sites that charge a fee to remove a mug shot from an online listing. This is blackmail.
However, as compelling as the reasons are in support of this bill, they do not outweigh the fact that this legislation is an assault on freedom of the press.
A mug shot can add impact to a crime story. If the suspect remains at large the mug shot can advise television viewers or readers of a print or online publication to be on their guard.
Where would the intrusion into freedom of the press end?
Law enforcement organizations often stage “perp walks” that allow the media to take photographs and videos of suspects in handcuffs or chained to fellow inmates as they taken to jail or court. This is far more humiliating than a mug shot. But like mug shots, these images can assure the public that the justice system in working and that there are consequences for committing crimes.
After mug shots and perp walks are banned would the Legislature then ban the publication of a suspect’s name?
We concede that the media has a responsibility to let readers know when charges have been dropped, especially if a mug shot has been published in a high-profile crime.
But this is a matter of journalistic ethics, not something that should be mandated by law.
A far better alternative to the current bill would be a law that would ban Internet sites from charging people to remove mug shots.
In addition step should be taken to make it more difficult for potential employers to see a record of arrest if the charges have been dropped or the applicant has been found innocent.
We urge state Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel of Great Neck, a sponsor of the mug shot legislation, to take a second look.
If it becomes law this bill will do more harm than any possible good.
This is the kind of feel-good junk that often passes through the Legislature without being given serious thought.
