14 years
Whoa - is it normal in the UK to publish mugshots of petty criminals? In Germany, he could extract a nice amount from the newspaper now.
Man Apparently Admits to Stealing from Hostels and Backpackers
Front Desk Operations
Conman: Bridport fraudster gets 28 months
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/localnews/8337709.Conman__Bridport_fraudster_gets_28_months/
He's in jail for something else, but admitted to stealing from backpackers in hostels while posing as an American:
In police interview Byrne – who had five previous convictions from 18 offences – said he had stolen from hostels in London and from backpackers in hostels around the world and took the passport of a man named John Plowser in Paris, whose identity he assumed.
I though some hostels might be interested if they've seen him before...
- Comments
14 years
In the US they do it also, but possibly only if convicted. We also have to use the word "alleged" unless they are convicted of that crime...
14 years
In the US, mugshots are public record, regardless if you are convicted or not. However in some states you can be arrested and charged with a crime, and not have your mug shot taken until you report to jail to serve your sentence.
The practice comes from the argument that because criminal courts are open to the public, and any member of the public could visit a hearing and see an accused criminal in person, that there is no reasonable argument against releasing their photo to the public. There are rare exceptions, minors for example.
14 years
In the US, mugshots are public record, regardless if you are convicted or not. However in some states you can be arrested and charged with a crime, and not have your mug shot taken until you report to jail to serve your sentence.
The practice comes from the argument that because criminal courts are open to the public, and any member of the public could visit a hearing and see an accused criminal in person, that there is no reasonable argument against releasing their photo to the public. There are rare exceptions, minors for example.
Interesting. The reasoning seems a bit awkward to me anyway. It contradicts "innocent until proven guilty" - we all know that most people don´t make much difference between "alleged thief" and "thief". Would you hire someone whose mugshot was all around the media, even if he was later proven innocent?
Related Pages
Log in to join discussion