Arizona sheriff hosts 'mugshot of the day' web vote
 

Ms Dierx, who is charged with murder, burglary and armed robbery, is just one of the suspects whose mugshots are being used in a bizarre competition run by a sheriff in Arizona.
Visitors to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office website, mcso.org, are encouraged to vote on which mugshot "you like best" from among the suspects being held.
Each day the image with the most votes is prominently displayed on the front page of the site.
Voters can choose to browse mugshots by category of felony — arson, assault, fraud, homicide and so on — or enter a first name, last name and booking number.
Understandably, the competition has drawn fire from some — but Sheriff Joe Arpaio says it's a good thing.
"I'm putting these people on the web because maybe someone will recognise the person — 'oh that's the same person who did something to me, or stuck up a store'," he said.
"I think it's a great law enforcement technique."
It seems visitors to the website agree.
Alongside the "mugshot of the day" poll, there's another one — asking whether or not the competition should be allowed to continue.
The results are overwhelmingly in favour. At the time of writing, 84,000 people had voted "yes" and just 20,000 "no".
This isn't the first time Sheriff Arpaio has been in the news for his controversial decisions.
Last month he was criticised for raiding a suspect's house with several armoured vehicles and a tank carrying Steven Seagal.
An attorney for the suspect accused Sheriff Arpaio of staging the dramatic raid for the benefit of Seagal's TV show Lawman.


SOURCE


:haha: Errr, yea right.

Right on Brother. Err...wait, what?
Only in America, right? Or should that be Only in Arizona?

What did I do wrong?
http://mcso.org/MultiMedia/Mugshots/P760290_0300.jpg

Making fun of convicts is one thing but people just being charged with a crime do not deserve being mocked and vilified by what they jokingly call law enforcement in that county.

Can I vote for Sherriff Arpaio's mugshot?

:sign_yeah: I would really like to see this option but I doubt it. Mr. Arpaio would propably end up to front page...

The tv news stations here have a "today's arrests" section with mugshots, and have for ages. If the information and pictures are in the public domain shouldn't they be available to the citizens at large?

Because it is an invasion of privacy that will have a negative impact on the person being pilloried. I think if the concept of innocent until proven guilty has any meaning then it should not be allowed.

If it turns out that a person featured on the website had been worngly arrested, would Sheriff Arpaio be offering a public apology for subjecting him to public disgrace?

Mug shots are "public records," as are all arrest records. Consequently, there isn't anything (short of a sense of professional ethics) to prevent their publication. What's interesting here is that it's a government agency doing the publication. Talk about poisoning the jury pool! Maybe Sheriff Whathisname will feel a mite differently about his little stunt after a judge starts tosses cases out left and right. Idiot.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office back in the news. Blech

Probably not...he can apologize when the court date is set.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office... :hmmm: Maricopa County Clown's Office rhymes better... or even Maricopa County Clown Office but latter one is a bit unfair to deputies. :D

I see nothing wrong with if the shots were only people previously arrested and need to be found.
If he's posting pictures of people already in jail for the fun of it, bad idea.

We have a dozen crime shows on TV that post pictures/mugshots of suspects before they've been found guilty, murderers and rapist. Hundreds have been found and convicted. Never heard of one case where it was thrown out of court for being on TV.

Even many local news outlets will show video clips or pictures of possible suspects.

Exactly...much to do about nothing.

Would you say the same if your daughter was featured on that page just because she came around the wrong corner at the wrong time with some junkies behind it when a police squad raids them? (I know that this isn't a prime example but I can't think up something better right know and I think you know what I mean.;))

Agreed. But the persons publishing the photos in your example were "journalists," not state actors required to prove the guilt of the person photograph beyond a reasonable doubt.

I haven't done any research into the question, but it seems to me likely that any defense lawyer worth his salt would argue that the publication of these photos by the sheriff deprives that accused of his right to a fair and impartial jury.

I do not believe so. What is the difference between a line up for possibly identify the perp? What is the differencedif fingerprints are taken and run in the computer? What is the difference in using a mugshot book? We have to remember the person has been arrested. At that point the Miranda Warning issued. Everything else is fair game. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in the court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

Above and beyond that....posting pics looks ok to me. :03:

Not to be a bore, but all of the things that you mentioned - appearing in line-ups and mug books, taking fingerprints, reading Miranda, etc. - are police functions having nothing to do with the Sixth Amendment right to be tried by a fair and impartial jury (at least in those instances where the penalty exceeds six months in the slammer). I can't imagine that any juror who witnessed Joe Blow's line up or fingerprinting, or any other aspect of Mr. Blow's arrest would be be considered "impartial" when it came to seating a jury to determine whether Mr. Blow is guilty as charged. But that's essentially what the Sheriff's done here: tainted the jury pool with widespread dissemination of the mugs shots of the accused. If the NY Times does it, the defense asks for a change in venue. But when the sheriff does it? Well, let's just hope that some predatory dirt bag isn't released to roam the streets because Sheriff Bonehead thought he'd have some fun with the internet.

Well not really. The Miranda warning says nothing about entrapment or falsifying evidence either but that doesn't make them "fair game".

Where did entrapment and falsifying evidence come into play? The Miranda warning is cut and dry. Shut up if you like. If you talk we can use the information in a court of law. You can hire a ambulance chaser if you like. If your broke arse can not afford one the state will gladly appoint one for them. :hmmm: Fingerprints and pictures to follow. See ya on the net!