I was inspired by our class discussion on the use of standardized photography of convicts, so I wanted to take a look at the use of mugshots today and those captured in the Victorian Era. The practice could be said to have forever changed the use of criminal records and the interference of the state with their community.
The use of photography as a means of an archive was not new even when normalized for the use of prisons. However, the choice of using prisoners as a means to archive society in a way that was not seen with other communities or events, such as workplaces or births, is a statement to the people. For the argument of preservation, this idea is negated by the simple fact of evidence. In contrast to today where every instance is routinely photographed and memorialized for the masses, the limited instances of state-controlled photography only emphasizes the use of photography of convicts as a means of polarization for the individual and well as a method of control.
One such photograph is that of Thomas Murphy, a man who was convicted of stealing purses from the 1880s-90s in Yorkshire and Lancashire. The photo captured, an unknown person with their hands on Thomas’s face, appearing to force him into a position.
I found a modern example of prison photography on a Facebook page titled “Austin Mug Shots”. There are pages of mugshots available with the only information provided being the person’s name and their arrest date. However, to find any further information, one only needs to look up their name on a database.
From the beginnings of the practice of photography in prisons to the standard of mugshots in the present day, there are little differences besides the advancement of technology for access and the understanding of the standard by society. There is no need for manipulation of faces to guide a prisoner to maintain the standard pose for the majority of prisoners, as there is an understanding of expectations set by the abundance of examples we are shown throughout our lives. By simply living in such a society, one understands that you will be photographed and will have your arrest record made public. By committing a crime, you agree to sacrifice your privacy.
The standard practice of photography in prison is not only the use of mugshots. It is the knowledge from the state that the society they exert control over know of the state’s use of their identity. What can the modern day individual change about a practice that those in the 1880s could not overcome? Is one’s image not sacred in the modern age and was it ever? Does an ease of access mean that it is not worth as much?
Works Cited
“Austin Mug Shots.” Www.facebook.com, 4 Dec. 2023, http://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=345325311434708&set=pb.100078717252636.-2207520000. Accessed 4 Dec. 2023.
Lashmar, Paul. “How to Humiliate and Shame: A Reporter’s Guide to the Power of the Mugshot.” Social Semiotics, vol. 24, no. 1, Oct. 2013, pp. 56–87, https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2013.827358. Accessed 28 Nov. 2019.
Mac Suibhne, Breandán, and Amy Martin. “Fenians in the Frame: Photographing Irish Political Prisoners, 1865-68.” Field Day Review, vol. 1, 2005, pp. 101–20, jstor.org/stable/30078606. Accessed 4 Dec. 2023.
Victorian Visual Culture 
Haley, I’m so intrigued by your astute consideration of mugshots — from the Victorian period to now — and in particular by the two images that you have chosen. I have not seen that photo of Murphy which indeed lays bear the coercive nature of state photography in a carceral context. In contrast, as you point out wisely, the second image indicates a shift to the ubiquitousness of mug shots in the contemporary.
By: amartinmhc on December 23, 2023
at 5:56 pm