The Instigator
DebateHero82
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheDamox
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is it right that someone's arrest photo is posted online?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,903 times Debate No: 22740
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

DebateHero82

Con

There are plenty of people who have charges dropped or shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. They haven't even had the chance to defend themselves yet and now it is right there for the public to see you in an unflattering pose against your will. Most people assume you are guilty or did something wrong just for being arrested and there are a lot of applications and forms now that require you put down your arrest record even if you were not convicted so merely being arrested is a punishment in and of itself. Can somebody give me a reason why this should be the case other than that is what some politician or judge says or some body's convoluted interpretation of the constitution. And no, don't give me this democracy crap we all know this was never put on some federal ballot and not everybody votes anyway. Give me a philosophical reason why somebody should be shamed and have their personal business be available to everybody.
TheDamox

Pro

I accept my opponent's challenge. I am PRO and I am saying that it is okay to post someone's arrest photo online.

In my debate I would like to discuss a few points.

My First point - The positions of my opponent and I.

My Opponent has selected the CON position which means he believes that NO ONE's arrest photo should be posted online. I have selected the PRO position which means I believe that at least one person's photo should be posted online.
The Question of debate states, 'Is it right that someone's arrest photo is posted online?' the Question does not say, ' Is it right that EVERYONE's arrest photo is posted online?' which means that my position is that I believe that at least one person's photo should be posted online.

Definitions of Someone and Everyone.

Someone - pronoun
1 an unknown or unspecified person; some person:
Examples: there's someone at the door
someone from the audience shouted out

Everyone -
pronoun
every person:
Examples: everyone needs time to unwind
he knew everyone in the business

Someone means 'a person'. Therefore I believe that at least one person should have their arrest photo posted online.

My second point is - Extreme Crimes not Pity Crimes

My opponent has stated, 'There are plenty of people who have charges dropped or shouldn't have been arrested in the first place.'
I agree with my opponent on his only argument that there are some people like this who shouldn't have their arrest photos posted online. I also believe that there are people who should definitely, without question, have their arrest photo posted online. People who murder, rape, et cetera should definitely have their arrest photo posted online for a numerous amount of reasons. The first, if a person who has done these illegal activities is found (by recognition of the arrest photo online). The person who found him can call the proper authorities. If a man, who has committed a crime of great importance, has escaped from jail, his arrest photo should be shown on more than just the television. His photo should be spread wherever possible. If an extreme offender who has done his time, people need to know that this offender has had a bad history. I don't believe my opponent would want his children around a person who went to prison for kidnapping and producing child pornography. This information should be spread.

My third point - The police use the Internet as well.

Most police have a police computer inside their vehicle at all times. If you think I am making this up look at this website. (http://auto.howstuffworks.com...) Police need access to the Internet to be able to access records and files. Not having an arrest photo on the Internet for the police to be able to use makes their jobs difficult and nearly impossible. An arrest photo is needed to identify a criminal properly without just guessing. Without the Internet the police might pick the wrong people for crimes they didn't commit.

I thank my opponent for giving me this challenge and I look forward to his rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateHero82

Con

My First point - The positions of my opponent and I.

Let us not argue over semantics. It is not the point I was driving at on this issue. I meant to say 'nobody's' arrest photo should be posted online. I just recently became a member here because I am interested in people who genuinely feel a certain way about a position and are interested in defending their position for the sake of the crux of their argument, not some grammatical issue so please let us move past that point. I guess you could call yourself the winner on this grammatical point but once again I am not looking to 'win' this argument, but merely to understand philosophically why somebody would support having 'anybody's' arrest photo online.

My second point is - Extreme Crimes not Pity Crimes

(by the way you used pity instead of petty but see the point above and my lack of concern for grammatical problems)

1.The argument that they should only post people's photos that have committed "extreme crimes." You admitted that some people are arrested who should not have been in the first place or are later declared not guilty . Well, people can be wrongly accused of extreme crimes just like they can wrongly accused of petty crimes. I could even argue they should be more inclined to do the opposite and post petty crimes because to wrongly accuse somebody of murder/rape is a much graver mistake than to accuse somebody of public intoxication, for example.

2. The second issue you raised in this point is that their photo is needed if they have escaped from jail. This issue is easily solved by not posting their picture until AFTER they escape from jail. I am sure the percentage of people who have escaped from jail is quite small anyway, but even if not my point still stands. And if the person does escapes from jail and the cops need help in finding the guy the posting of their picture on the Internet, tv, newspaper, etc. is done for IDENTIFICATION purposes (which I do not necessarily have problem with) and not for the purposes of complying with some public records law, shaming the person, punishing the person, etc (which I do have a problem with)

3. The third issue you raised in this point is that people need to know if an offender has a bad history after doing 'their time' to protect people from kidnapping and such by this individual. First, if they have done their time, then their punishment should end there otherwise they haven't really done their time. Second, if they are that much of a threat then they should not be out in society in the first place and we need to look at making the sentence longer for that particular crime. Third, you are presumably talking about identifying somebody after they have already been convicted and having served their time whereas the original question dealt with people who were merely arrested. I have less of a problem with the posting of a picture AFTER conviction. Fourth, I know it is possible that people can post bail and be free for x number of days before their trial. This opens up a whole other can of worms because I believe the bailing system in this country should be reformed because it favors the rich among other problems. For the sake of staying on this single issue let us assume there will not be bail for people who are a real threat to society.

My third point - The police use the Internet as well.

I am aware the police use the internet and many other types of technology and they have a right to do so. There is also something called the 'intranet' meaning it can only be accessed by a certain group of people (i.e. law enforcement) so they could easily have pictures of arrest photos stored in their car's computer without having that information available to everybody. You also say in this third point that they need the photo to properly identify the subjects to prevent the arrest of the wrong person. First off, the point I made about the 'intranet' solves this problem. Secondly if the cops are looking for somebody they have already arrested before they should have their picture already from the mug shot taken at the police station that doesn't need to be shared with everybody. Already having a picture they are less likely arrest the wrong guy.

I look forward to your counter arguments.
TheDamox

Pro

I thank my opponent for his good debate points.

Firstly,
I would like to say that the question can be interpreted differently and I was stating how I interpreted it.

Secondly,
It seems that you believe that every country in the world has a bad court system. You have stated many times, 'wrongly accuse somebody' as if courts in general have a massive reputation of accusing the wrong people for petty (thanks for the 'heads up' on the grammatical error) crimes and also extreme crimes. The United States isn't the best country in the world for it's court systems. However, the Internet is International. We should also be looking at countries that have reputations of having great court systems. In these countries (and in some cases The United States) we should have arrest photos online. Not as humiliation, but as a warning. Some people are safety 'Nazis' and want to make sure that their children will be safe at all times. These people have the right to know if some one has had a bad history.

Thirdly,
You seem to agree with me about having the photo there for IDENTIFICATION purposes. I also agree with you that the 'public records' law is a stupid idea. It shouldn't be public. People have the right to privacy. Others, however, do not. This is what I'm talking about with people who do crimes that actually affect the community or society in which they live. Getting a speeding ticket doesn't affect the community. A serial murder does. There are people who need their photo online and others who don't. I feel that we have an understanding on this point now.

Lastly,
Not all countries use the Intranet. Most do, but not all of them. Some countries are dependent on using the Internet for criminal files, information etc. We aren't just talking about The United States because, as I said before, the Internet is a global piece of technology.

I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateHero82

Con

Are you serious? Do you genuinely feel a certain way about this issue or are you just grasping at straws and trying to come up with random stuff to pick apart and look all fancy with your milt-faceted 'DEBATE'. You want to talk about the definition of somebody vs. everyone. You want to talk about how the police should be able to use the internet. You want to talk about how the Internet is international. You want to talk about other countries' court systems. You want to talk about comparing speeding tickets vs. murder. I think you are treating this debate like a game. As I said multiple times, I am interested are who really feel a certain way about an issue and are willing to back up their argument in an intelligible way. Nonetheless, I will try to address your points in the last arguments and hopefully you actually respond to my specific arguments and not come up with more random crap.

-The court system being corrupt

First off, let is just deal with the United States. Forget about other countries court system or access to the internet or whatever else other countries have going on. I never said I think there is a big problem with corruption in the U.S. Court system. If one person single person is wrongly accused and arrested then that is a problem and posting their arrest photo COMPOUNDS the problem because the person is put through further punishment of shame, having to put their arrest record and applications and such like I eluded to earlier.

-Arrest pictures online as a warning

A warning for what? To keep other people from committing similar crimes. We do NOT know that they have committed the crime even if the court is not corrupt because that have not had the chance to defend themselves yet. THAT IS MY POINT. I already stated this in my opening argument. You also say it is meant as a warning and not as a humiliation. But that is how the arrested person will take it and that is how others who see it will look at it. It does not matter the government's reason for posting the photo. It matters only to the person who has their arrest photo posted since they are the ones who have to deal with it.

-Some parents are safety nazis

Once again this is a point I already addressed..

First, if they have done their time, then their punishment should end there otherwise they haven't really done their time. Second, if they are that much of a threat then they should not be out in society in the first place and we need to look at making the sentence longer for that particular crime. Third, you are presumably talking about identifying somebody after they have already been convicted and having served their time whereas the original question dealt with people who were merely arrested. I have less of a problem with the posting of a picture AFTER conviction. Fourth, I know it is possible that people can post bail and be free for x number of days before their trial. This opens up a whole other can of worms because I believe the bailing system in this country should be reformed because it favors the rich among other problems. For the sake of staying on this single issue let us assume there will not be bail for people who are a real threat to society.

-You said I agree with you with posting of photos for identification purposes

We do not agree with each other here. I said if (and only if) somebody has escaped from jail then it is ok to post their picture so people know what they look like to call the police. They are merely arrested and are sitting in jail they should not have their picture posted

-You say people's picture should be posted of crimes that really affect the community and not other crimes (speeding ticket vs. serial murder)

My point is nobody's arrest photo should be posted no matter if they killed somebody who ran a stop sign. The reason for this I already gone over, but I will try to make it even more clear for you. THEY HAVE NOT HAD THE CHANCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES YET IN COURT AND POSTING THEIR ARREST PHOTO IS PUNISHMENT IN AND OF ITSELF. They might NOT be guilty and putting people's faces all one list people are going to say "hey, these are all bad people" no matter if it says "murder" or "speeding" next to the charge listing. Besides even if you wanted to come up with a list of charges that "affect the community" and those that don't, how are you going to do that. I could say speeding affects the community because they might be more likely to run over my kids when they come home from soccer practice and I don't want them in home owner's association or I don't want this person to work at my kid's school because he was arrested for public intoxication 5 years ago or I don't want this person to live in my town because he vandalized a park when he was 18.

-Lasty, you say not all countries have the intranet

Once again, let us stick with the united states. To make it simple for you, let us forget about the intranet. Let us forget about the internet. In fact, let us forget about computers all together. Let us just talk about just photos and a $2 wal mart folder. That is all the police identify find criminals. Pictures have been around for decades and folders for centuries in virtually every country world so hopefully that will take you off the international global kick. But once again, you are missing my point. If the police are looking for somebody who has committed a crime, WHY DOES THAT REQUIRE THEIR PHOTO BE POSTED ON THE INTERNET? I don't understand what you don't get about that!!!!!
TheDamox

Pro

TheDamox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
DebateHero82

Con

DebateHero82 forfeited this round.
TheDamox

Pro

TheDamox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
DebateHero82

Con

DebateHero82 forfeited this round.
TheDamox

Pro

TheDamox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DouggyFresh 5 years ago
DouggyFresh
TheDamox, do you not know that when it says 2 days remaining, it means for the next response. After which the timer goes back to 3 days for the next response. It is not 2 days for 3 rounds.

DebateHero82 I'd love to have a philosophical debate about this, and I feel strongly enough to take the side of Pro. We can drop the semantics (I get enough of those arguments as is). But if you would be so kind, maybe refine/organize the resolution and your opening arguments so we can avoid confusion and get down to discussing the philosophical nature of the topic.
Posted by TheDamox 5 years ago
TheDamox
Can we have an extention of the time. I don't believe that 2 days will be sufficient for 3 more rounds of debating. We can talk about this if you believe it will be enough time.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
once something is on the internet you cannot get it off...
Posted by KILLUMINATI 5 years ago
KILLUMINATI
They charge like 30 bucks in Tampa just if your booked even if your innocent the picture can be taken off of the website if you request it after court
No votes have been placed for this debate.