https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/24/us/police-photoshop-tattoos.html
This article outlines a specific incident in which police airbrushed the tattoos of a suspect of a bank robbery for the lineup photo because the surveillance footage showed the robber without face tattoos. Upon further investigation, it was found that this was not an uncommon practice. Many large police departments use photo editing software, but some criminal justice experts believe there are valid reasons for doing so that sometimes make lineups much fairer. There are was an instance of police adding the distinguishable birthmark of a suspect to the other people in the lineup in order to make the suspect less distinguishable. Most people are enraged, saying it is completely unjust to alter a suspect's image to look more like an eye witness' description.
The public's view of the police in today's political climate is extremely divided. There are many that view the police as corrupt or see them as the enemy, largely in response to senseless murders of black men. Therefore, the photoshopping of pictures of a black man definitely do not help this negative view many people already have of the police.
What do you think about the concept of police photoshopping images of suspects? Do you think it is ever justified?
How do you feel about the way many people view police today (about how many people believe the police to be the enemy or those who are anti-police)? Do you think people are justified in being anti-police?
While I do understand the reasoning behind altering people’s lineup photos to ensure the fairness of lineups, and I do think that increasing the fairness in the criminal justice system is a great goal, I think putting the idea of altering people’s appearances for lineups into practice is extremely dangerous. The whole idea of a line up is for a witness to identify the people who committed a crime, and if the police start to change people’s appearances, that completely invalidates the witness’s identification because it is entirely possible that the police have an influence on the witness’s positive identification. In order for this to ever be justified, the police have to prove that, without a doubt, what they are doing is in fact increasing the fairness of lineups which I think is very hard to do. Additionally, eyewitnesses as they stand now are already unreliable without the police altering things. According to Greg Hurley, an analyst at the National Center for State Courts, “Although witnesses can often be very confident that their memory is accurate when identifying a suspect, the malleable nature of human memory and visual perception makes eyewitness testimony one of the most unreliable forms of evidence.” So, I definitely think the eyewitness/lineup system needs improvement, but altering people’s appearances is not the way.
ReplyDelete1. Yes, I do believe it is justified, especially in cases where suspects have gone out of their way after committing a crime to disguise themselves. There was an apocryphal case I read about a few years ago where someone used acid and skin grafts to change their own fingerprints after committing a crime so they could not be traced; while that obviously is not a police line-up, it does prove there is justifiable cause at times. While some may say it is unethical, and that it violates the sanctity and integrity of the entire system to edit photos, sometimes it is necessary to ensure that justice is served. Nathan makes a good point about the unreliability of eyewitnesses, which does raise the question of "if the system is unreliable as is, why add other factors that could cause false positives or negatives?". This practice could be considered a slippery slope that enables more intrusive means of "ensuring fairness," methods that could veer into the police unjustly biasing people toward particular suspects. To answer the second question, as someone who does not regularly interact with the police I am not the best person to say anything, but I think that the general perception in society of "cops as killers" is ultimately detrimental. I concede that the frequency of events recently where police have attempted to manipulate body camera footage or have otherwise been documented saying unsavory things and showing bias, as a whole they exist to serve the public and preserve justice, and they certainly do an admirable job of that. We are easily incensed when we hear the one-in-a-million cases of police brutality or things "going wrong," but we do not think about the many other times in routine circumstances where things are fine. So no, I do not think people are justified in making that assumption as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to police photoshopping the images of suspects, I think it should not be done. Furthermore, I believe this because if someone commits a crime, felony, etc., they essentially put themselves in the public eye for judgement and criticism - also by editing the images, the entire face of the individual is not altered; only some parts are, as evident in the side by side photos above. So even after being edited, the people are still recognizable if you look close enough. Additionally, as far as the "for police" or "anti-police" discussions, I think every person, group, ethnicity, race and individual is entitled to their own opinion on the topic. In my opinion, I think the police are there to serve us and keep us safe. However, I know that sadly in the case of African Americans or muslims, this is a big issue as they are somewhat targeted by the police... and this idea of certain groups being targeted more than others is not a new thing, it has been going on for many, many, years.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ryan that photoshopping pictures is justified. I see how it can be unfair to do so, however I think this is one of those issues that deal with the difficulty of balancing one’s freedom and security. In the article, they discuss how people are more likely to pick someone in a lineup if they have a distinguishing factor, so eliminating that distinction can ultimately help solve the case. Therefore, since photoshopping can actually help the process and keep the public safe, I believe it is justified. In regards to how I view the police, I believe that in some cases and some areas, police are called out for brutal and unjust actions and they deserve the criticism they receive; however that does not represent the police force as a whole and it is unfair to say that all police are bad people when in actuality they do so much for their communities. I definitely feel like people don’t trust the police and the fact that they don’t disclose things such as photopshoping and then people find out on their own makes them turn against the police.
ReplyDeleteWhile making all police and prosecution processes as fair as possible is a good goal, photoshopping of lineups is probably not a good way to accomplish this. The fairest way to do a lineup to present each suspect as they actually would have looked to witnesses. Although, as experts state, there CAN be legitimate reasons to photoshop lineups, digitally altering a photo to make a suspect look more like the described perpetrator, especially without telling eyewitnesses that the photos have been edited, is downright malicious.
ReplyDeleteBeing "pro-police" or "anti-police" is probably the wrong way to think about the issue. I have deep respect for many honorable policemen, but I also have deep respect for activists who protest police brutality, discrimination, and over-policing of certain groups. We've learned over and over again that generalizing groups doesn't work. The view of all policemen as brutal bigots is just as warped and incorrect as any racial stereotype. While I agree that discrimination and over-policing of certain groups is a huge issue, the solution isn't to dissolve all police forces, as the term "anti-police" would imply.
Although the intention of promoting fairness is benevolent, the method in which the police are attempting to execute such fairness is extremely misguided and wrong. If anything, police who alter photos of suspects in a lineup to better match the suspect to an eyewitness description should perhaps be prosecuted themselves for obstruction of justice, as they are unlawfully tampering with the suspect's appearance and directly increasing their likelihood of being selected from a lineup. However, Remy brings up a good point of cases where suspects could potentially stand out more with the possession of a distinguishing trait, such as a birthmark, but I still maintain the position that photoshopping images of suspects in unjustified in any and all cases, since the justice system is supposed to have as little interference or bias as possible involved to truly be fair. Additionally, this might start as simple, seemingly well-intended photoshopping, but can easily escalate into something far more dishonest.
ReplyDeleteToday, the public's opinion is quite polarized on the matter of police. Just to clarify, I agree with Andrew that the debate isn't "pro-police" or "anti-police" but rather a debate over corruption, racism, and abuse of power. However, to answer the question, I definitely believe people are justified in being "anti-police." If forced to choose between the two sides, I would 100% align myself with those who are "anti-police," as there have been a multitude of atrocities committed against communities of color by the police, who are meant to protect us, yet all too often abuse their power -- at the expense of the lives of innocents, which is unacceptable. I believe Ryan is mistaken in describing this incidents of police brutality as being "one-in-a-million," as it literally happens every day, and the Bay Area is no exception. I do acknowledge that of course not every police officer is the same, but the amount of young, innocent lives lost over nothing is outrageous and I don't understand how people can support such an outright racist, arbitrary, and unjust system. For example, in an article from The Atlantic, they found that 57,375 years of life were lost to police violence in a single year. This is not anything new, as police have been abusing their authority and killing people of color, typically young black men, for decades. Personally, I have not been involved in incidents involving police violence, but definitely police discrimination, which is something I have witnessed and experienced numerous times. There's nothing fair about the justice system or the way police officers enforce it, and until there is progress, I believe that the people have every right and reason to be anti-police.
In some cases, I do believe that the process of photoshopping images of suspects can be justified. These exceptions could be enhancing details of a person’s characteristics that they already possessed but may not be noticeable or distinct in the image taken, or adding details that could’ve been changed in the time between the moment the picture was taken and when the crime took place. However, I do not believe that this act is justified if the police are altering these photos to falsely accuse someone innocent of a crime without any strong additional evidence to prove the suspect guilty. In regards to the second question, I think that there are flaws and truths in how the police are depicted to the public. Majority of the time, the police are seen as authoritative figures that abuse their power in that they use it against people of color or to things that are typically unacceptable for regular citizens to do. However, the reasoning behind this is due to the fact that when police do misuse their authority, it is usually widely heard about in the news and through social media. Despite there being policemen that do abuse their powers and authorities, there are plenty that do follow the rules and act as they. Therefore, I think that the stereotype of policemen is accurate in some sense, but doesn’t qualify as a generalization for all policemen.
ReplyDeleteAltering someone's appearance to look more like the description of eyewitnesses is wrong and unfair. This increases the suspect's chances of being picked from the lineup. The confusing part for me if why would a person be a suspect if their physical appearance differs from camera/video footage and what people saw. I could understand using this method as a confirmation, meaning that suspects are narrowed down and people not involved have their appearance changed so they can be added as fillers in the lineup to confirm that they same person is chosen out of the lineup even when there are look a likes. There is a prominent feeling around our nation that the police abuse their power rather than use it to protect us. I understand where these people are coming from due police brutality incidents that no one can deny. This makes me sad because those few who have abused their power make a bad name for all police officers, even though many of them work hard to protect us.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caitlyn's point regarding the fact that altering a suspect's image in a way that redefines that person's image to make their features more prominent, could in some ways be justifiable and more helpful than harmful. However, I think the line between what counts as enhancing the features versus changing the features is very thin. If mismanaged, the use of technology to change a suspect's features could lead to many instances of abuse of that power. This revelation does not help the rising hatred some people have for police during this era either. With the many incidents of policemen abusing their power and unrightfully taking the lives of black men, the unfairness of these acts have greatly impacted many people's opinions and views of the rights that policemen have. These incidents have been largely ignored with little being done to stop them, which I personally believe should be changed. However, I also believe that the fear and/or hatred of all police is not fair as there are many who work very hard and put their lives on the line for the protection of others.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it seems to make sense to photoshop lineup photos so that they all look the same, or to photoshop them so that people match witness descriptions, the editing defeats the whole purpose of lineup photos. If you want someone to identify a suspect, they would need a clear unedited photo to correctly spot them. In this specific case in the article, it is believed the man used makeup to hide his tattoos. Yes, this could be a distinguishing factor but you can still tell what people look like if they had one or not. There was no need to photoshop his photo so much because when they try to use it as evidence, it is not as strong- it would be seen as essentially leading the witness and not having them be able to identify the suspect on their own. If they truly recognize the suspect, they would probably be able to say that he/she looked like a certain photo but without tattoos. That is still helpful in the investigation and is unlikely to be called out as being tampered with, as an edited photo would be. Additionally, a photoshopped lineup would make people more likely to confuse the guilty perpetrator with an innocent suspect.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the first question, I believe under some circumstances, photoshop is okay. I believe it's okay if police are trying to find a suspect and need to look at certain characteristics that were already stated by witnesses. Like, police should be able to magnify certain characteristics of a suspect. But, changing the features of a lineup is unjust, especially if it's due to the bias of a certain race. I feel like nowadays, the police and law enforcement have a lot of power. So much that it gets to their head and their unjust actions (such as photoshopping his face) is justifiable. Also, in regards to the second question, I believe that many people are both pro and anti-police. But, for the most part, anti-police. Some people are pro due to the possibility that they don't see the heinous crimes and actions that police officers have committed. While, I believe anti-police supporters are more knowledgeable on police brutality and prejudices.
ReplyDeleteI agree that photshop is okay but never for lineups. The bigger problem is why so many people are anti-police. I understand they've done bad things, and you have to know the amount of cops that are great cops are way more than the few that are horrible. The said thing is the media is one of the biggest problems only showing wrong cops actions. If you are anti-police, please go sign up for the police academy and go through the rigorous trainging. Then graduate and try risking your life everyday you go to work and put your life on the line for citizens of this country that you don't even know. Most people won't do it, so before you reply please realize it's the hardest job in the US.
ReplyDeleteLike others above have said, I believe that photoshop is okay in certain scenarios but not for changing any suspect so significantly they are unrecognizable or hard to distinguish. Photoshop should only be used for magnifying some distinguishing traits of a suspect and should be used with caution.While there is some justification in people being anti-police, the extent people go is a bit too far sometimes and that leads to unnecessary violence.The police are not the enemy, but they do not have the most ethical practices.
ReplyDeleteI dont want to have the unpopular opinion, but I think if it's done right, unlike the photo above, that it is just to do so. Many criminals mask theirselves by altering their appearance. An investigation realistically shouldn't say it's not the person because of the tattoos because it may very well be. I wouldn't be surprised if most investigation bureaus use this technique. If you try to make the person look like the guy in the video by adding things, that's a different story, that's framing. In this case I just think theyre trying to deepen the search and keep all options open. Sometimes it can even be hard to distinguish some human characteristics with tattoos. But I definitely do agree that if it isn't done to a high standard, like what is seen above. Then I don't think it's a viable tactic if you can't do it well.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think it is not right of the police to photoshop images of suspects so that they can fit in with the lineups better than not. However, photoshop outside of police jurisdiction is fine with me including touch ups in photos, but in criminal cases using photoshop in unacceptable. We are supposed to rely on the police for safety in our communities and this action has left us questioning if the police are really doing the job correctly. I think overall, a lot of people view the police as unreliable due to the recent murders they have committed due to someone's race. Police shouldn't be killing people without a reasonable cause. In this case, it is justified to be anti-police with all of the conflicts and news about the police doing the wrong things at the wrong time. On the other hand, there are times where the police are very helpful, so it's hard to justify the reasons on both sides whether anti-police or not.
ReplyDeleteFor the police to alter a suspects lineup photo, I believe is unjustified. This creates an unequal disadvantage for those who are innocent. Even if the same alterations were made on the whole lineup it would still be unfair. In fact, I think that would only make it harder to find the one out of a group that now have the same physical features. I feel like a reason police would do this comes from pressure to solve a case, they may have a very strong idea that they know who the suspect is and to convince the public they may alter photos. Police should not aim to find the offender, but focus more on serving justice. Although I believe it is important to ensure people are getting the punishments they deserve. Priority should be to prevent citizens from suffering injustices.
ReplyDeleteunknown is Ann Yang
DeleteFrom briefly scanning the comments section above, it seems to me that people either fall into one of two camps: it's not okay to alter suspect photos, or it's ok to magnify certain distinguishing aspects of suspects in order to make the lineup better. Personally, I don't think either of these two is correct. I think that photoshop should only be used in the case of removing things such as tattoos, and only if the police knows these tattoos were acquired after the crime, because criminals may have specifically gotten tattoos in order to look different from how they did when they committed the crime. The thing is, in this case it doesn't seem justified to say that photoshopping is not allowed, since the suspect changed their own look and the photoshopping is only done with the intent of changing them back to their original appearance to make recognition easier. That being said, using photoshop to amplify certain characteristics does not seem justified either, since innocent people may be falsely "recognized" due to how they look with amplified features.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think it is justified to photoshop suspects’ lineup pictures. While I do understand the reasoning, altering the pictures will change their appearance in some way and also defies the purpose of lineup photos. I agree with Caitlyn that enhancing details is justified, but it seems as though in most cases the changes are noticeable and significant. There is also a huge difference between slightly enhancing a small feature and changing an appearance so significantly that they look almost like a different person. When police photoshop characteristics to match eyewitnesses’ statements is unethical and is completely unfair. It just goes to show an abuse of power that is present in society. I do see some people’s point about how criminals change their appearances (by adding tattoos in this case specifically) to hide themselves but in the end, how different can a person look unless they completely realter their faces? In this picture specifically, I can still tell that they are the same person despite the photoshop. I don’t think that if a criminal adds a few face tattoos that it will “mask” their appearance, which is a reason why I believe that isn’t a good enough argument to argue altering lineup pictures is ethical or justified.
ReplyDeleteI think that when using Photoshop for suspects in lineup pictures is not a good option. Altering a persons features to make sure they get picked in the lineup pictures is clearly makes it biased. If they want to make it as fair as possible, no alterations should be done to the persons face, even if they are a prime suspect. It could however be justified if they state why they are doing it. They could be doing it to see if there are similar features with another person that could be said suspect. They could make a completely AI created face that could have all the features the witness described and then match it to certain features in the alleged suspects. On the topic of anti-police I'm not entirely sure. It could go both ways. In certain states police have abused their power of the people but in other states little to no abuse has happened. There are people who are right to believe in anti-police ideals. For instance there are lots of cases of police brutality in Louisiana and New York. I don't think this is right but the police should be kept in check. Their actions aren't justified. Police should be forced to explain their actions before they carry them out, or report to a higher ranking officer before they decide to do something that potentially change someones life.
ReplyDeleteIn today's society, policemen have been seen as heroes and villains. After so many policemen have used excessive force or have killed, a civilian, it is easy to understand why they're not that loved within Americans. I truly agree that there are cops out there that use their position to take advantage of others or harm others. However, not all policemen are like that. There are truly good cops out there that every day do their best to protect civilians and keep the order in the streets. Last August fifteenth, six policemen were shot while trying to "serve a drug warrant surrendered early Thursday morning following a tense hours long standoff"; I feel that Americans these days generalize all cops as bad, but in reality, those bad policemen are a minority. There are huge groups of policemen out there that are doing their best at protecting the city and keeping the order in the streets.
ReplyDeleteArticle used: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/14/philadelphia-police-shooting-injured-standoff-cops-gunman/2013448001/
DeleteI believe that photoshopping is usable in some cases such as focusing on a special feature of a criminal. But altering facial features in lineup picture can be unjustified. They should provide a reason for doing this so that the public can have a better understanding of why this is a common practice and determine if it should be continued. Many people are anti-police because media tend to exaggerate and focus only on the brutalities of police, and not really talking about the challenges and dangers a police would face. People receive negative news about the police and gradually starts to forget their contributions. Although some police do sometimes act unwisely, a negative label should not be place on every police.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, I want to say that I personally do not think that photoshopping images of suspects is a good thing for police to do. I believe that this is not something that should be done by police because if they think that the suspect is a certain person, then they may photoshop the picture to make it look like the suspect. The person who they believe is guilty may actually be innocent, but since they photoshopped the image of the suspect, they may lean towards making it look like him/her. To continue, I don’t think that being anti-police is a good thing either because I believe that the police exists to protect, and ensure the safety of the people; there shouldn't really be a reason to be ant-police. I do understand that people have their own opinion, and that many people dislike the police, but I don't really see a reason to hate on them.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am not aware of the legality of police altering suspect photos, it seems to be a grey area within the justice system. I cannot make an absolute statement about police altering photos; however, for this particular case I fail to see the significance of the adjustments made to this suspects profile. In response to the second question, I personally believe that the vast majority of police are there for us as a whole. Despite there being cases of police incidents that raise controversy, I do not feel it is justifiable to be disrespectful or regard the police and other first responders as the “enemy”. Cases of abuse have to be taken on a case by case basis in order to prevent it becoming a polarizing issue. At the end of the day these are brave men and women that put their lives on the line, often having make difficult split decisions in order to protect our country and its citizens.
ReplyDelete