Mugshots

John D. Thomas, Jan 24, 2013

http://digitalethics.org/essays/mug-shots/

Title:

Want a mugshot get arrested. 

My First Impression:

All about criminals and mugshots 

Quote:

“You don’t need to be a celebrity for your mug shot to be newsworthy. We’ve rounded up the most ridiculous jailhouse pics from normal everyday folks … well, sort of normal …” 

Reflection Proper:

I do not agree with the allegations of John D. Thomas. Taking into account his claims that posting mugshot is deceptive. He trusts that those individuals in the mugshots are abused, and are utilized just to pick up benefit, and that they are not yet liable until demonstrated. Well for me I think unless writers put a disclaimer that they are blameless unless demonstrated liable would totally make it alright to post mugshots on their sites. What's more, I trust that giving a disclaimer like this is the commitment of each columnist. As I would see it individuals have the privilege to comprehend what is going on around them, and that is the thing that the columnist in Tribune's mug shot exhibition is doing. Also the Tribune have didn't abuse any rights on the grounds that mugshots can be seen by the general population. Telling individuals that these individuals are blamed for perpetrating a wrongdoing makes individuals mindful that the law is doing it's occupation of making the general population in their group safe. Thomas additionally said that "The Internet always remembers a face, and Google ventures can demolish an existence or a profession in the event that somebody discovers a record of a capture of a man who later ended up being totally blameless."The Internet never forgets a face, and Google searches can ruin a life or a career if someone finds a record of an arrest of a person who later turned out to be completely innocent. And the Chicago Tribune doesn’t have a corresponding photo gallery of “Exonerated Mugs.” , once you post something online it would arrive perpetually, so you are only one web hunt far from being contracted down work or get declined from it. Notwithstanding I concur with his announcement that "imagine a scenario where somebody was demonstrated honest.

5 Things That I have Learned:

1.  Cruelty that comes with these kinds of features can last forever online.

2.  Mug shots and arrest records are easy pickings for lazy journalists with cruel streaks.

3.  Ethical implications and complications surrounding posting pictures of people who have been arrested.

4.  The Internet never forgets a face

5.  It’s quite easy to destroy someone’s reputation by posting this kind of possibly specious information online

5 Integrative Questions:

1.  Why would it post pictures of people who have been arrested but not yet convicted?

2.  Isn’t it the job of such a paper to protect the innocent and the less powerful?

3.  Does the police department has a long history of corruption?

4.  Why did those people do it?

5.  What are the consequences of posting these stuffs?