A judgmental fascination often incriminates us, too
Mug shots capture a moment of shame, regret, anger, sorrow or the absence of humanity. Others can appear amusing, though they’re not supposed to be.
Robert Casey Welches didn’t hesitate to answer my question during a 2009 prison interview.
“I was an immature punk-(expletive) kid who made a horrible mistake, costing someone their life,” he told me at Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, Indiana.
Welches said this is what he was thinking when police took his booking mug shot photo after his arrest. In 1994, Welches and two accomplices perpetrated a burglary that ended with a 55-year-old security guard being shot and killed. Welches was sentenced to 42 years. His image was captured at possibly the worst moment of his life.
For journalists, requesting mug shot photos from police departments of arrestees is as common as requesting a police report or a court case number. How many newspaper stories have you read that were accompanied by a mug shot photo of someone who was recently arrested? Hundreds or thousands, right?
I’m a self-confessed mug shot gaper, asking myself each time, “Do I know him (or her)?”
We stare at these head shot photos and the arrested subject stares back at us.
“I felt dead inside,” one killer told me in a prison interview after murdering his wife.
His mug shot photo reflected his feelings. His eyes were empty, blank, devoid of any emotion. I remember looking at that photo while writing my column about that domestic homicide many years ago.
Mug shot photos often capture a moment of shame, regret, sorrow, drunkenness, embarrassment, anger, evil or the absence of humanity. Some reveal the grotesque nature of a serial criminal who was finally apprehended. Other mug shots look silly, amusing or entertaining, though they’re not supposed to be. The 2009 booking photo of legendary music producer Phil Spector, who died last month in a California prison while serving a sentence for murder, comes to mind.
Certain mug shot photos reveal a person’s true character, or we would like to believe it anyway. The sex offender mug shot of Jeffrey Epstein comes to mind, with a smirk on his face that we hoped a police booking officer would have slapped off. For me, that 2013 mug shot will forever capture Epstein’s sinister essence and heinous crimes.
The mug shot photo of disgraced American icon Bill Cosby, taken in 2020, clearly illustrates how far he had come from being a loved and respected national treasure.
I wanted to stare into his eyes to get a glimpse of double-faced wickedness, but he was too ashamed to look up toward the camera.
I’m writing about mug shots today because the Chicago Tribune has adopted new guidelines about handling mug shots of people arrested in crimes who have yet to go to trial. The new guidelines prioritize public safety, news judgment, and compassionate coverage while acknowledging inconsistencies in the criminal justice system that affect which mug shots are released and published online.
It’s part of an “ongoing examination of the fairness in how we report on people — a bit of introspection that is both shared across the news media industry and long overdue,” wrote Colin McMahon, Chicago Tribune’s editor-in-chief.
“Part of this is just plain fairness,” he wrote to readers Feb. 9. “A lot of people who are arrested will end up not being convicted. Some will be found not guilty or won’t go to trial at all. Some will plead guilty to lesser charges, even misdemeanors, instead of the ones that put their names in the news.
“Readers may associate law enforcement booking photos with criminal activity; their use might imply guilt of individuals who are, by law, considered innocent until proven guilty,” McMahon wrote.
Without doubt, this is true. Readers instinctively cast judgment against anyone who has a mug shot photo. We equate their mug shot with guilt of some kind. I do it all the time. Once that image is in my head, it’s difficult to acquit that person of wrongdoing even if a judge or jury does so at a later time.
Humans, by nature, are an unforgiving lot. It’s more convenient for us to cast blame and guilt than to search for compassion and redemption. I tend to judge first and review evidence later, if at all. In a way, mug shot photos also reveal a telling aspect about all of us — how we gravitate to them, scrutinize them, judge them and never forget them.
“So, as readers, you will still see mug shots from time to time, but far fewer,” McMahon wrote.
The Chicago Tribune and its suburban newspapers still will publish mug shots when it serves a public safety purpose, such as potentially helping crime victims come forward.
Also in cases of high news value; for example, if the person is a public figure such as an elected official, or when a crime is especially high-profile.
Photographing facial images, “mug shots,” of arrestees and criminals dates back to the 1840s. The practice later developed into two shots, a front view and side view, of each subject. Publishing mug shots in newspapers has been a traditional staple for crime stories, from the petty to the horrific. These mug shot images are the first entry point of a story for most readers.
I know readers who scroll through online mug shot galleries as a casual hobby. They will still be able to do so on county jail websites or online databases. Not so much anymore, though, on a rising number of media outlets including the Chicago Tribune’s newspapers.
“This decision has not been taken lightly, nor has it been made in a vacuum,” McMahon told readers. “Our goal is to be as judicious, thoughtful and intentional as we can be about the journalism we publish and the stories we tell.”
Through the years, I’ve had readers describe the photo that accompanies every column of mine as my “mug shot.” I laugh it off, but they have a point. Every column in some way incriminates me to some readers who, like me, are quick to judge and slow to acquit.