Opinions: Humiliating people online is wrong, even for local governments

 by Daniel Wallace
 published on Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Avondale, a city about half an hour west of ASU's Tempe campus, now posts pictures online of people arrested for and suspected of shoplifting. This practice has been set up as a deterrent and is certainly an advancement well beyond Maricopa County's policy of posting mug shots of people convicted of DUI online as a punishment.

The suspected shoplifters in Avondale, whose faces have been slapped on the Web, haven't even been convicted of the crime for which they are being punished. They are suspects — in the United States.

Similar programs, according to The Arizona Republic, are being implemented nationwide in efforts to deter prostitution, DUI, domestic violence and public indecency. The city of St. Paul, Minn., has been releasing suspects' photos for more than 20 years — in the local newspaper at first, and now online. Chicago posts pictures of women arrested for prostitution.

El Paso, Texas, has faced a lawsuit for such a practice, but apparently settled the case by adding a disclaimer to their Web site stating that suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

On Avondale's Web site, there is a similar statement in bold letters that "All persons are entitled to the presumption of innocence." This disclaimer is ironically set almost directly below the heading for the Web page, which reads "Shoplifters." I have several problems with this system.

Primarily, while it may act as a deterrent, the practice of posting mug shots online seems more like a punishment.

It doesn't seem consistent with American ideals to clearly label people "shoplifters" when they haven't been convicted of the crime for which they receive the label. Criminal courts are responsible for determining guilt and proper punishment for crimes committed.

When the city of Avondale, on its official Web site, uses the heading "shoplifters" and posts names, photos and details of people arrested for shoplifting, they seem to have bypassed the job of the courts and dealt out punishment without trial in the name of deterring crime.

This practice should not continue.

At the minimum, Avondale should wait for people to be convicted before they label them a shoplifter and post their picture online.

If Avondale refuses to wait for a court decision, the Web site's heading should at least be changed from "Shoplifters" to "Suspected Shoplifters," or even better, "People Arrested for Shoplifting."

This would be much more consistent with their "presumption of innocence" disclaimer.

Even if Avondale waited for convictions, however, I would still not be satisfied.

I do not agree with the practice of posting convicted people's photos online as a punishment.

I understand that the Freedom of Information Act allows any U.S. citizen to collect such information. What it does not call for, though, is for government agencies to publish such information in order to punish and humiliate criminals.

In a 1958 Supreme Court decision, it was determined that the goal of Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments" is to preserve the "dignity of man" and punishments are to be "exercised within the limits of civilized standards."

To the extent that the goal of publishing photos of convicted criminals online is to punish them through shame or humiliation, I believe it goes against preserving the dignity of humans. As such, this type of punishment does not seem to conform to the established interpretation of the Eighth Amendment.

All of the billboards around the valley that say, "Drive Drunk … See Your Mug Shot Here" clearly betray the County Attorney's real motive for this sort of punishment: He wants to shame criminals.

But while many will argue that someone convicted of DUI or shoplifting or any number of crimes should probably feel ashamed, it is not the government's job to ensure that they do.

Daniel is an English literature senior. He can be reached by e-mail at: daniel.d.wallace@asu.edu.