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

What Courts do with Executive Privilege Claims

By Gbemende Johnson, Hamilton College

“Because Congress requires this material in order to perform our constitutionally-mandated responsibilities, I will issue a subpoena for the full report and the underlying materials.” This was the response of House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) after receiving the redacted 448-page Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.The battle over the Mueller Report is just one example of conflicts between Congress and the executive branch over executive privilege, where agency officials claim they can withhold documents. Many disputes land in federal court. The Obama Administration Department of Justice spent years in court defending its claim of executive privilege over documents related to the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” gunwalking operation. Federal courts have proven less likely to let cabinet level agencies like the Department of Justice withhold documents than they are with independent agencies li…

Inviting Papers for a Symposium on Immigration Detention

Law & Society Review Symposium: Facing Immigration Detention Revised Submission Deadline: February 15, 2020

Immigration detention is one of the most pressing civil and human rights issues of our time that affects millions of migrants around the world. The theme of this special symposium issue, Facing Immigration Detention, is understanding the causes, conditions, and consequences of immigration detention around the world. This Special Issue is dedicated to advancing public knowledge about how immigration detention has expanded, its role in immigration enforcement, its societal impacts, and its intersections with the criminal justice system. The Special Issue seeks to bring together innovative research that will guide the next generation of detention studies and inform policy debates in this area.  

To be considered, the work must engage with theory, offer empirical analysis, and make clear contributions to socio-legal studies. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:
Causes of…

Switching Up the Metaphor: from Baseball to Knitting

Susan M. Sterett, University of Maryland, Baltimore County



Metaphors guide what we see. In studying law and courts, metaphors for the law have come from baseball: Justice Roberts famously said in his confirmation hearing that judges call balls and strikes. Justice Kavanaugh followed his lead. Although umpires argued the analogy misunderstands the creativity the job requires, it remains a common metaphor for judging. The valuable website Oyez asks on each Supreme Court justice’s biography which baseball player is most like the justice’s contribution to the law. It’s an incomprehensible question for those who don’t follow men’s professional baseball closely. It also points to justices, and individual achievement, as the key players in law. Others are spectators.

What would show up if instead an activity often dismissed as trivial, mechanistic and feminine—knitting (and I want to include crochet; for brevity I’ll sum up both with knitting)—were the metaphor for the law instead? 
Bas…