Among the most popular online features provided by jails in Benton and Washington counties, and elsewhere, is the roster of people who have been booked. You know, the ones where drivers charged with being intoxicated are often flush red and bleary-eyed; where the fear in the still-teenage college coed's eyes suggests she's thinking "are my parents going to see this?"; and where the regulars manage a familiar smile for the camera.
These rosters are made up mostly of people accused, but not convicted. The disposition of their cases usually plays out over months or even a year or two before a judge or jury determines if they owe a debt to society for an infraction.
What’s the point?
Concerns about the lingering impact of shared information online should not become a foundation for more secrecy in public records.
The often disheveled heads shown in "mug shots" represent people caught at possibly one of their worst moments in life, and certainly none of them at their best. Given a choice, none of them would want any evidence of the arrest available for public view.
All of these jailed people are 18. Juvenile records are sealed from public view under the general idea young people deserve second or third chances to clean up their acts. As with the setting of any standard, a line has to be drawn somewhere. In the United States, we generally look at those 18 and above as adults, capable of handling the responsibility of mature decisions -- or the repercussions of bad actions.
Back in the good ol' days, many of these arrests might get listed in the local newspaper for a day, but as time passed the information, for the most part, became archived material few ever saw again. The introduction of the Internet into our lives, however, has been a game-changer. Now, it's just as easy for someone in Denmark to see who got arrested in Fayetteville or Bentonville as it is for someone living three blocks from the jail. And once on the Internet, it seems information never dies; it just lives quietly until it becomes relevant to someone again. Or until there's a reason for someone to go looking for "dirt," whether it's a potential employer, a father wondering about the guy his daughter is dating, or someone who just got curious.
In our always-connected world, something's got to change. And for some, that something is a push for government secrecy, a drive for less openness with public records. That would be a disastrous outcome for a nation where the government is supposedly of, by and for the people. Government needs checks and balances, and the capacity to evaluate the actions of government is either empowered or restricted by how transparent government is in its records and decision-making processes. Restricting access to information is no way to advance the cause of freedom in the United States.
So what about people affected by that information? Though there are a few stories of people wrongly arrested and therefore harmed by information being spread, those are the exceptions. In most scenarios, poor judgment leads to an arrest if not a conviction. Adults who get into those situations must shoulder the responsibility for them.
Ironically, many job-killing nuggets of information floating about the Internet are self-inflicted. Today's younger population often operates without any kind of filter: if it happens, why not document it with a Tweet or a post on Facebook or a photo on Instagram? Some people put their whole lives online, then an applicant is bothered when he seeks a job with the federal government and the potential employer finds out he has "I love Edward Snowden" tattooed on his thigh.
The best approach to protecting one's online reputation is live a life that wouldn't be an issue if it was shouted from the electronic rooftop and show enough sense to follow responsible standards for self-regulated privacy. One's past cannot be erased. Even if it could, the solution shouldn't involve advocacy for more government secrecy. That's a dangerous solution.
The Internet presents a real test of whether Americans believe in transparent government. Any push to create more secrecy around the information government has will find its supporters. Don't be surprised when it turns out to be the people who benefit most from an uninformed public.
Commentary on 01/27/2015