pictures of criminals

irishash

I was reading the news about the sentencing of 7 men for a combined total of 72 years as a result of their conviction for a house invasion in Tipperary. From what I have read it was a very frightening ordeal for the family involved. (Link - http://m.rte.ie/news/2015/1001/731682-tipperary-burglary-sentence/ )

Reading about it on the RTE website, something occurred to me. On the report, you see pictures of two of the men. One a grainy zoomed in picture, the other a bit clearer. Most of the time you don’t see the convict’s face, just a coat or jumper held over them.

Most of the time, once a sentencing is completed in the UK, on the news (TV, print and Internet) you will always see the mugshot of the convicted.

Why is it in this country, a convicted person does not have their visage plastered all over the media, for all and sundry to see what real scum looks like (esp in this case). Why is there no official picture taken when somebody is charged (maybe they do take a picture but don’t release it to the media).

I am sick and tired of seeing convicted criminals allowed to hide their face after a conviction. They have been found guilty. These guys pleaded guilty. They have no entitlement to any privacy at this stage.

I have no problem with somebody hiding their face prior to a conviction as they may be innocent and are therefore entitled to some amount of anonymity.

Am I getting annoyed over something stupid here, and the important thing is that they are locked up, and named and shamed??

 

Mother Brain

Yeah, I mean how am I supposed to construct an accurate likeness for the effigy I plan on burning in the garden if I don't know what they look like?!

Tea 1000

irishash wrote: »

I was reading the news about the sentencing of 7 men for a combined total of 72 years as a result of their conviction for a house invasion in Tipperary. From what I have read it was a very frightening ordeal for the family involved. (Link - http://m.rte.ie/news/2015/1001/731682-tipperary-burglary-sentence/ )

Reading about it on the RTE website, something occurred to me. On the report, you see pictures of two of the men. One a grainy zoomed in picture, the other a bit clearer. Most of the time you don’t see the convict’s face, just a coat or jumper held over them.

Most of the time, once a sentencing is completed in the UK, on the news (TV, print and Internet) you will always see the mugshot of the convicted.

Why is it in this country, a convicted person does not have their visage plastered all over the media, for all and sundry to see what real scum looks like (esp in this case). Why is there no official picture taken when somebody is charged (maybe they do take a picture but don’t release it to the media).

I am sick and tired of seeing convicted criminals allowed to hide their face after a conviction. They have been found guilty. These guys pleaded guilty. They have no entitlement to any privacy at this stage.

I have no problem with somebody hiding their face prior to a conviction as they may be innocent and are therefore entitled to some amount of anonymity.

Am I getting annoyed over something stupid here, and the important thing is that they are locked up, and named and shamed??

If I were dictating this country, I'd have the scum hands chopped off so that they couldn't hide their scum faces.

topper75

irishash wrote: »

Am I getting annoyed over something stupid here, and the important thing is that they are locked up, and named and shamed??

 

Not stupid. In the public interest, in fact.
I agree with you.

I know someone who was a press photographer and one of the clear downsides of the job was assignments at the courthouse steps. It sometimes turned nasty and even physical.
So a clear Garda station mugshot would be the way to go.

NachoBusiness

irishash wrote: »

I am sick and tired of seeing convicted criminals allowed to hide their face after a conviction. They have been found guilty. These guys pleaded guilty. They have no entitlement to any privacy at this stage.
 

Just because you see them covering their faces, doesn't mean we don't also get to see pictures of them too.

They're just muppets as in general, when they do that, it's pretty pointless, as the media will just use other photos of them.

DEFTLEFTHAND

topper75 wrote: »

Not stupid. In the public interest, in fact.
I agree with you.

I know someone who was a press photographer and one of the clear downsides of the job was assignments at the courthouse steps. It sometimes turned nasty and even physical.
So a clear Garda station mugshot would be the way to go.

I agree, in the States for instance the mugshot always seems to be released to the press.

biko

Some countries may have different legislation but generally it's down to the actual paper.
I see papers in another country switching between full, clear image or blocking the eyes or even pixelating the whole person beyond recognition.

I'd say it down to the paper and their editor in chief.

VisibleGorilla

What good does it do having their mug shots released?

In the US websites exist where they extort money of people to have their mugshots removed, would you like that here? How do you think that fits into rehabilitation?

irishash

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

What good does it do having their mug shots released?

In the US websites exist where they extort money of people to have their mugshots removed, would you like that here? How do you think that fits into rehabilitation?

Is it extortion or paying for a service. But that is the US. Under new EU laws I can ask google to remove links about me from the search engine. I am sure I could pay somebody to do this for me too.

Here are two example of the bbc website reporting on convicted criminals. In both cases there is a clear photograph of the convicted. One a street photo and the other a mugshot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34411670

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34176058

 Are laws different in respect of this type of thing in the UK?

 

 

donegaLroad

I much prefer looking at pictures of attractive women, it puts me in a better mood.

topper75

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

What good does it do having their mug shots released?

In the US websites exist where they extort money of people to have their mugshots removed, would you like that here? How do you think that fits into rehabilitation?

Rehabilitation is a single component of justice; it is not the whole.
Protecting the public is another component.
Moreover, justice must be seen to be done by wider society, and there is no use in the media announcing the conviction of an abstract entity.

padd b1975

It's far more important to have the correct sentence consistently imposed. IMHO.

Anything else is just tabloid voyeuristic nonsense.

Merv the perv

Is it really that big of deal OP ? it's not like you are going to recognize them walking down Grafton Street in 12 or whatever years time.

goose2005

Mugshots are evidence, i don't think evidence should be routinely handed to the media

Bulbous Salutation

Facebook is great. You can look up their profile, and check out their friends. Lots of the hard men of Ireland on display. Nasty tattoos, IRA slogans, pictures of Bob Marley, very orange women.

Omackeral

Bulbous Salutation wrote: »

Facebook is great. You can look up their profile, and check out their friends. Lots of the hard men of Ireland on display. Nasty tattoos, IRA slogans, pictures of Bob Marley, very orange women.

Well if that's not hypocritical, I don't know what is.

Junkyard Tom

What about that poor blind woman who had to make a sculpture out of mashed potato of an alien's head because she was in love with Lionel Ritchie?