I would say that this violates the 8th Amendment. Not because the pix are humiliating, but because these people have NOT been convicted of any crime.
Having said that: I vote for either Mallory or Angelica. Mallory is pretty darned pissed, and Angelica is a bit too happy.
(Click on the photo for a more humiliating image)I do think that "Richard Joe" deserves some love.
(Nod to Kevin Lewis)
7 comments:
I hope Angelica will be okay. I wonder how she managed to get herself arrested. I notice she is wearing a Fred t-shirt. Fred is a massively popular YouTube personality with a squeaky voice. He is especially popular with people who are borderline retarded. That might explain why she is so happy. She may not be fully understanding what is going on. It is a great shame to see mentally challenged people end up in the prison system.
http://www.youtube.com/show/fred
And even more shameful to see them humiliated by having mug shots posted on-line for the sport of "the people."
Not sure you are right, dangph, but bound to be true for a significant number of people who are processed through Maricopa's brutal system. Thanks for the info, I didn't know about "Fred."
I don't know for a fact that Fred appeals to the borderline retarded. I just said that because I was being an elitist asshole (it annoys me when people like things that I consider stupid). I feel bad about making fun of her now. Still, my analysis might be correct. I do genuinely hope she will be okay.
I don't see how it violates the 8th. Its all public information and would be perfectly legal to do even if he wasn't a government official (look at thesmokinggun.com, and similar sites)
Sheriff Joe (and the enablers of smoking gun) are violating the fifth, by depriving these folks of their reputation without due process. If any of these folks are acquitted, think Sheriff Joe will post an apology on the web?
This is horrible, but not a 5th Amendment violation. You don't own your reputation
"You don't own your reputation"
Is the question really a closed issue?
From http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process :
"...a problem about what is a "deprivation." A series of cases involving state harm to citizens led the Court to an almost inexplicable series of "due process" results. For example, an early case held that a state could not post a picture of a person naming him as an habitual drunkard without first providing a chance for a hearing; the posting made it unlawful for that person to be served alcoholic beverages in a bar. Yet when a city circulated the photograph of a person recently arrested (but not convicted) for petty theft under the heading "Active Shoplifters," causing enormous damage to his reputation, the failure first to provide a hearing was not objectionable."
And later in that article:
"Some have thought it important that in these cases (and others), state law appeared to provide a remedy after the fact; the victim could sue the official for slander or for assault."
It's pure wishful thinking, but I'd love to see Sheriff Joe sued clean out of office.
Post a Comment