Forward
Again, I was constrained by a word-count with this paper. The teacher wanted exactly one page per subject, even though I could have written a whole paper on each subject. But anyway, I got an "A" on this paper, too, but I feel I could have done better.
The Media, Crime, and Violence
Many people believe that the media are a cause of violence and crime, and others believe that they simply report what they see. In the history of man, there has always been violence. In the Bible Cain killed his own brother, Abel, because he was jealous, and then tried to lie about it. The Bible and other history books are full of the tales of violence that have defined human nature. As long as there has been violence, people want to know about it. The obsession of humans with the macabre could be our survival instincts at work. Being aware of danger can help us to avoid it.
I believe that there is violence regardless if there is a journalist there to cover the story. The media definitely capitalizes on gruesome details; the more shocking the piece is, the more viewers there will be. I do not believe that the media contributes to violence and crime, or is a cause of it. Informational websites, like The Smoking Gun (TSG), report on high profile cases and odd crime stories. Some people may believe that news sites like TSG inspire copycat criminals, but the same information available on TSG is reported in newspapers around the nation. If someone is going to commit a copycat crime then that is what they are going to do, regardless of where they heard the story. According to the Media Awareness Network, scientists revealed in “studies conducted in Australia, Finland, Poland, Israel, Netherlands and the United States” that in order for media violence to cause aggression in children, they must believe that the violent shows “portray life just as it is” (2008).
People should pay more attention to the rise in population in relation to violent crime; and they should also be looking at the discipline skills of the parents who are raising kids that end up violent offenders.
The Media and Anticrime Efforts
I do not believe that the use of the media to deter crime increases society’s fear of crime. The media is not a bona fide solution to crime deterrence, but I do believe that it is helpful in some situations. If anything, I feel that the media’s display of crime deterrence methods enables the people to safeguard themselves. People feel more confident if they have methods to turn to. For example, a woman walking to her car in a dark parking lot late at night might feel more comfortable after watching a news segment on how to prevent an attack, or how to defend herself from an attacker. Another good example of how the media can help deter crime is shows like America’s Most Wanted, and news casts that show video surveillance of crime, mug shots, or police sketches of suspects. This allows the community to get involved and help law enforcement solve cases and find criminals.
America’s Most Wanted is successful because the host, John Walsh has experienced what many families have suffered, the loss of a loved one. Because of that connection to the people, and because of lobbying efforts by John Walsh, many laws have been passed, and many criminals have been brought to justice. People like a happy ending just as much, if not more, than our natural morbid curiosity to see violence in the media. It is true that journalists and reporters can be invasive. If you or someone you love has been the victim of a violent attack, members of the media can seem annoying. There are some instances, however, when the media can be used as a crime fighting tool. Parents of missing children often turn to the media for help in enlisting the aid of the community in finding their child. Consider the constitutional rights for the freedom of the press; and consider the positive side of the media instead of focusing on the negative.
The Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule was designed to uphold the Fourth Amendment, protecting the rights of people against illegal search and seizure. The rule has made it so evidence seized illegally is not admissible in court, and cannot be used against a defendant even if it proves their guilt. The exclusionary rule should be repealed. A person’s rights can still be respected without enforcing the exclusionary rule, by redefining, and adhering to “probable cause”. Illegally obtained evidence should be allowed in a trial if the evidence clearly proves a suspect’s guilt. As an alternative to the exclusionary rule, statutes should be enforced upon unruly law enforcement officers who knowingly violate a person’s rights, as described in the Fourth Amendment.
There may not be a very large percentage of criminals who are set free because of the exclusionary rule, “less than one out of 100 police arrests are declined for prosecution”; but even one out of 100 is still one too many (Neubauer, 2001, p. 66). It is true that the court should not overlook any type of illegal activity, including activity by the police; but they should not overlook one for another. Both parties should be prosecuted, police and criminal. The rule designed to protect peoples’ rights has turned into a law protecting the rights of criminals. It is not acceptable for law enforcement to take advantage of their authority and conduct searches without warrants, but the community should not suffer for law enforcement’s mistakes. Individual officers should be reprimanded for illegal activity. Dismissing incriminating evidence as a punishment to police is unjust. If an officer breaks the law, his misdeed does not make a criminal any less guilty. The exclusionary rule allows for a criminal to successfully commit a crime without punishment if evidence used was obtained illegally.
The Death Penalty
Is the death penalty an effective deterrent against crime? This is a tough issue that should be handled case by case. On one hand, I feel if a state is going to enforce the death penalty, then they should really enforce it. The death penalty is not a good deterrent if it is never used. On the other hand, I do not really agree that it is anyone but God’s decision to take a life. The offender needs to be punished, no doubt, but does anyone really deserve to die? That is a tough question for me to answer. Capital Punishment is the ultimate retributive justice; some crimes just seem so heinous that no other punishment seems just. If you take away the death penalty, criminals will have no real fear of severe punishment for serious crimes. Plus, prisons are already overcrowded, and the expenses fall on taxpayers. I still am undecided on whether or not I support the death penalty, but I do think it could be a good deterrent.
As it stands, studies show that states who do not use the death penalty fare better on homicide rates than states that use the death penalty (DPIC, 2008). The problem here is that states that have the death penalty do not use it enough. The deterrence value of life in prison is equal to the death penalty, so why not abolish the death penalty? I suppose I fear that taking away the death penalty might ignite a rise in murder rates.
Whether or not the death penalty is moral, it will only be an effective crime deterrent if it is used more often. Criminals will be more likely to think twice about committing serious crimes if they know that there is a real possibility they will pay their debt to society with their lives. Society should not have to foot the bill to support another criminal in prison for the rest of his days. Get him out of there and help keep prison populations down.
Women in the Criminal Justice System
There are many different issues facing women in the criminal justice system; women who are affected by, or women who participate in the criminal justice system. There are women in the workplace, including law enforcement officials, and politicians. There are minority women, mothers, single women, single mothers, and lesbians. The woman criminal, and the woman victim in relation to domestic violence, sexual harassment, and the rhetoric involved in sexual assault cases. There is still bias against women in the workplace, in court, in prisons, and against women in general. Women have come a long way in history, only recently allowed to have jobs that were previously only for males. Despite all the legislation passed since the 1970’s, Glass Ceilings are still prevalent, along with lower wages. “95 percent of female court employees were in the lowest seven pay grades and none were in the top seven” a survey from Rhode Island found (Neubauer, 2001, p. 150).
In this age of record divorce rates, and gay marriage, America is forced to look at raising children differently than it has before. Some people still think a woman’s place is at home with the kids, and not in the office. America is changing, though, and so are the parental and working roles in American households. Minority women have twice the hardships of a minority male, or of a white female. I think it is hard for conservative types to get used to the idea that some women do not want to get married, or who wants to have children and no husband; and that they are entitled to do so. In the same respect, the idea that a child can have two mothers and still have a normal life still upsets many people, especially religious groups. The end result is hate, discrimination, and inequality. Justice is hard to come by for women.
Parole Abolishment
Humans can change, even criminals, if they are exposed to the appropriate treatment. They are not going to learn anything if they are stuck in prison. More funding should go into education, and rehabilitation programs, than into maintaining overcrowded prisons, or building more prisons. Educating children with better values and morals will put a stop to the incline of people in prison. Legislators would need to raise already high tax levels to accommodate the growing prison population; but, that money should be going to better the community, not bettering the prison system. Taxes are not going to go away, so we might as well do something positive with the money.
While it is true that inmates who are released on parole before their sentence is complete may continue a life of crime, the percentage is low. Rehabilitation programs do not profess perfection, but they do make a difference. The difference is made, in work furlough programs, when community correctional officers enforce punishment by sending unruly prisoners back to prison, instead of looking the other way. People who can be rehabilitated need the community’s support in helping them adjust to life on the outside. “Offenders often have few marketable skills and training and, as a result, have a difficult time securing legitimate employment. With no legitimate income, many resort to crime” (Neubauer, 2001).
I am so disappointed in California because we had an opportunity this election to put funds towards better rehabilitation and parole efforts, but the voters did not pass the bill. Bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo confused the voters and everyone piled on billions of more dollars to our already over-stressed budget; but I think we could have cut some spending on court and prison costs had we passed Proposition 5.
USA Patriot Act
Does the USA Patriot Act infringe on civil liberties? I think it does. Last month, “two whistle-blowers—former National Security Agency (NSA) military intercept operators—the people who actually listen in on phone calls—revealed that hundreds of innocent Americans, including soldiers and humanitarian workers for the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders, were routinely and intentionally eavesdropped on” (Romero, 2008). I watched this story on the news, Rachel Maddow interviewed the two agents, and I was appalled. I always knew it would come to this; it was only a matter of time before we heard about it. The Bush Administration has played on American’s fears of terrorism to pass a law that gives the government unlimited power of surveillance.
America needs to be protected against terrorist attacks, but “War” is not a good enough reason to jeopardize citizens’ constitutional rights. The power given to the government in the Patriot Act is too much of a temptation for weak-minded, insecure individuals who will most likely abuse the power given to them. The Department of Homeland Security already has a plethora of agencies to use to defend us. The problem is communication between agencies. Local, State, and Federal law enforcement need to work together to protect us. Giving the government more power is not the answer.
Now if the government was utilizing all of their options at that time, 9/11 could have been prevented. The reason 9/11 happened is because there was not enough communication between agencies. The CIA had information, they gave it to the FBI, Clinton was trying to catch Osama Bin Laden but failed, and the President Bush ignored the warnings of attack outlined in his morning Presidential Briefing. The people who could have stopped the attack were not paying attention.
Emergency Preparedness
I believe the U.S. has everything she needs to stay safe. We had the means to prevent the attacks on 9/11; but having the means and being prepared are two different things. There have been a lot of mistakes on the government’s part in the last few years, and a lot of opportunities to make up for those mistakes. The attacks in New York and the Pentagon showed us that we were not prepared to deal with a terrorist attack. Hurricane Katrina showed us that we were not prepared for an emergency. We have the agencies designed to prevent terrorist attacks, and for emergency assistance. I think what both of these events stirred was willingness between agencies to work together to accomplish a common goal: Keep American’s safe.
I think the government lost focus on Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and put unnecessary focus on Iraq. This is just my opinion. We had the chance to stop him but did not put enough resources into it. I also believe, however, the government has seen the error, and is doing everything they can to fix it. And every hurricane after Katrina has been watched closely, with Federal emergency aid ready. I think it is hard to prepare for something that you do not know is going to happen. We do not know when or where an emergency will occur; which is why we have to be ready for anything.
The Department of Homeland Security has many different agencies on call, ready and waiting for an emergency situation. We have specialized hazard units ready for biological, chemical, or radiological warfare, WMD, and natural emergencies. Local law enforcement is in contact with federal agencies and act as first response, clean-up assistance, and crowd control. I think we are very well prepared. We haven’t had any major catastrophes since 9/11, so maybe we have learned a few things.
References
DPIC (2008). Deterrence: States without death penalty have had consistently lower
Murder rates. Death Penalty Information Center Website. Retrieved on November27, 2008 from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
MAN (2008). Research on the effects of media violence. Media Awareness Network
Website. Retrieved on November 28, 2008 from
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_me_violence
Neubauer, D (2001). Debating crime: Rhetoric and reality. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Romero, A. (2008). NSA caught spying on our own innocent civilians and soldiers.
Veterans for Common Sense Website. Retrieved on November 30, 2008 from
http://www.veteransfocommonsense.org/articleid/11405
No comments:
Post a Comment