Skip to main content

Online Criminal Records & Legal Consciousness Theory

Sarah Esther Lageson
School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University-Newark

The internet has dramatically changed the way the public consumes information about the criminal justice system. At the same time, the justice system and information technology are both operating at unforeseen levels of activity. It’s as simple as a Google search to unveil someone’s mug shot or court records from the privacy of your smartphone. This explosion of digital crime data invokes new questions: who is responsible for the accuracy of these data? What rights do website subjects have? In other words, what should law do?

This hazy legal framework creates fertile ground for both website publishers and website subjects to develop their own set of legal consciousness around criminal justice data. Law and Society research has long demonstrated how in the absence of laws, or in the context of confusing or unclear laws, social actors construct legal meanings to help guide their behavior. In a period of rapid technological change, this is especially prevalent. My LSR article, Crime Data, the Internet, and Free Speech: An Evolving Legal Consciousness,” describes these processes as they relate to the release of criminal history information on the Internet.  I explore how crime website publishers, as well as people who have appeared on websites, interpret, construct, and invoke law in a nascent and unregulated area.

My analysis reveals how both parties construct legality in the absence of actual written law. However, this plays out differently for these distinct groups. The first set of interviewees, the “publishers” (composed of those who produce crime reporting websites) believe in the social good of producing this information for public consumption. On the other hand, the “subjects” (those who have appeared on websites) are wary of their digital criminal record, and describe the negative effects of this extralegal sanction that is widely available to anyone with access to the Internet.

Beyond beliefs about law, the two groups also invoke law in different ways. For instance, to justify their online posting of criminal records, website publishers tend use legal language and invoke their First Amendment rights. In contrast, those who appear on the websites are more likely to use personal pleas, working to appeal to the emotions of publishers as they ask for their arrest records and booking photos to be taken off websites.

The relative powerlessness of the people who appear on the websites is clear. They cannot use civil law, existing legislation, nor personal pleas to control the release of their criminal histories – even for non-conviction records or arrests that didn’t lead to charges.

These practices reinforce structural inequalities already present in the criminal justice system in a profoundly public manner. In the end, any and all brushes with the justice system remain Google-able indefinitely, resulting in inescapable digital trails. 

 
Example of a website publisher using legalese to justify posting an arrest photo. 

Popular posts from this blog

Comment: Making valid claims in social science research: A comment on Jenness and Calavita

By Tom Tyler, Yale Law School

I am writing to comment on several methodological issues raised by the article by Valerie Jenness and Kitty Calavita, entitled “It depends on the outcome”: Prisoners, grievances, and perceptions of justice”. I am pleased that the methodology blog for Law and Society Review has been created and provides a forum to discuss research design issues. I will address three aspects of the study: operationalization of the variables; statistical analysis; and inclusiveness of the literature review.

The Jenness/Calavita paper studies California prisons using data collected through interviews with prisoners. The paper says that it tests the perceptual procedural justice model, in particular there are frequent references to the Tyler model, in a prison setting. The study concludes that “prisoners privilege the actual outcome of disputes as their barometer of justice” showing “the dominance of substantive outcomes” (from the abstract)”.

I agree with Jenness and Cala…

The Roots of Life Without Parole Sentencing

By Christopher Seeds, New York University



Since the early 1970s, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP)—an extreme prison sentence offering no reasonable possibility of release—has emerged as a routine legal sanction and penal practice in the United States. A century, even several decades ago, this would have been unexpected. Yet today, with more than 50,000 prisoners so sentenced and hundreds of laws authorizing it, LWOP is firmly entrenched in American penal policy, in judicial and prosecutorial decisionmaking, and in public discourse. Two general theses—one depicting LWOP as a replacement penalty for capital crimes; another linking LWOP with tough-on-crime sentencing policy of the mass incarceration era—have served as working explanations for this phenomenon. In the absence of in-depth studies, however, there has been little evidence with which to carefully evaluate these narratives.

My article, “Disaggregating LWOP: Life Without Parole, Capital Punishment, and …

Europeanization or National Specificity? Legal Approaches to Sexual Harassment in France, 2002–2012

By Abigail Saguy, UCLA

Sexual harassment represents a massive problem for working women worldwide. A recent social media campaign has brought increased awareness to this fact. In late 2017—after three-dozen women accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, or rape—millions of women posted “Me Too” on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and other social media platforms. Taking inspiration from African American activist Tarana Burke—who, in 2007, started an offline “Me Too” campaign to let sex abuse survivors know that they were not alone—actress Alyssa Milano launched this online Me Too campaign to shift the focus from Weinstein to victims. She hoped this would “give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”[1] While some posted simply, “Me Too,” others provided wrenching detail about abuse they had sometimes never before shared publicly. In France, a similar social media campaign flourished, under the hashtag “balance ton porc,” loosely translated as “sq…