YOU are the real thing

Howard Beale was a character in the 1976 movie Network that was played by the actor Peter Finch, the movie was based on the cynical and competitive world of TV networks and news programs with the ongoing competition for the number one spot. One of the characters more notable quotes in the movie was "Your Beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal... In God's name, you people are the real thing." 34 years later and that quote still has meaning, possibly of greater significance then it did at the time due to the increasing impact television and movies have on our lives.

In addition to this an increasing array of crime television shows has resulted in the development of a term known as the CSI effect in which the public, specifically jurors, have heightened expectations of the reliability of forensic evidence. This knew phenomenon was dubbed the CSI effect due to the CSI television franchise, however it can also be linked to other crime series such as Law and Order, NCIS and Criminal Minds. All of these shows have been developed in America with CSI taking place in Miami and New York, while Law and Order focuses on NYC, NCIS is in both Washington and Los Angeles while Criminal Minds follows the BAU section of the America FBI. All of these shows play regular time slots in Australian broadcasting on both free to air and paid TV in both regular slots and re-runs . Therefore it is no wonder that academics are interested in understanding the way these shows influence viewers on their understanding of the justice system. I recently wrote an essay on the topic " viewing of fictional crime television and its effects in viewers and the wider community" and during my research I found myself pondering whether or not Australia's over exposure to American based television shows has resulted in a decrease in knowledge of their own justice system.

For example are most Australians aware that we do not have a Bill of Rights or Constitution like the American's do? It seems that in shows such as Law and Order and Law and Order SVU the first Amendment is mentioned in nearly every show and how many Australians accidentally call 911 (the American Emergency number) rather then 000?

Just a few questions that i feel need to be answered in this ever shrinking world as it seems that to understand societal views on crime one must look at the 8pm time slot on television.

Video games, TV shows or maybe its bowling that has our kids killing one another?

Bowling for Columbine was without a doubt one of Michael Moore's most intriguing tongue in cheek documentaries that slowly deconstructed and pointed out the stupidity of blaming teenage violence on the dark musical stylings of singers such as Marilyn Manson. While it is no secret that Moore has a tendency to be blatant with his own personal agenda it was hard to not see the logic behind his sarcastic message, that it was just as likely to be bowling that cause two boys to tragically kill 13 people and then themselves as it was to be their choice in music.

Now it seems that the new poster boy for the dangers of children being exposed to violence is Andrew Conley who at just 17 years of age killed his 10 year old brother and now at the age of 18 has been sentenced to life imprisonment. So what is the main message that the media has taken from this clearly disturbed young-man who has been diagnosed as being mentally ill by three doctors? That he admitted to the police he killed to be like the TV show Dexter, because clearly there is not a more important message that could be sent out to the public (sarcasm intended). The young man who admitted to hearing voices and has been experiencing urges to kill people since he was 8 years of age was put on the back burner when being discussed in the media, instead it has been blamed on the show that has been running since 06 (long after Andrew admitted to having urges to kill people). Instead he has been labeled the Dexter killer, with the clearly intelligent and well thought out comparisons being pointed out between Conley's hair color and the character Dexter's.

Its perplexing to me that this one element of a case will dredge up the old argument of video and TV show violence corruption our youth, when the real issue should be why no one seemed to notice this young man was clearly mentally unwell from at least the age of 8. Maybe instead of focusing on blaming other people this terrible incident could be used to focus on identifying issues within our homes and local areas, as undiagnosed mental illness and depression affect everyone involved but can be identified and aided if people know what to look for.

Prison is for punishment?

As a Criminology student at UNSW you come to understand the ongoing battle within the politics of the justice system that is rehabilitation versus punitive punishment. In this metaphorical battle it could be said that incarceration for punishment purposes is the Goliath, fueled by societies fear and politicians heavy handedness on law and order around election time. While rehabilitation with its tiny slingshot is David, supported by academics and empirical studies that are searching for a better way. It would be nice to think that concept of rehabilitation will one day triumph and filter into the policy of the justice system but thats a battle will be long in duration as monumental changes often are.

While this battle is raging on it seems as though the media plays an Iago like character, swiftly moving into the ear of the public and feeding off their deepest fears and ignorance to certain facts. While I am aware this is a fairly harsh comparison its not altogether unfounded, a perfect example is the Mods and Rockers of the 1960s, putting aside the humor that can be found in the fact that a bunch of teenagers driving around on scooters were labeled a danger, the concept of moral panic that is encouraged by carefully chosen words and facts in the media came to the forefront of many academic's literature.

With this fear created through over exposure in the media it is no wonder that society puts pressure on politicians to be harsher in their sentencing procedures and policies towards the more violent crimes. Its hard to consider the battle between rehabilitation and punitive punishment coming to an end with the media fueling the fire.

Do we care about the consequences?

Crime is one of the main aspects discussed amongst the evening news and printed amongst the black and white writings of the daily newspapers, especially those of a gruesome or disturbing nature. In particular nearly 66% of headlining articles in one week were in direct relation to a violent crime most often including rape or murder. However I have observed another aspect of crime reporting that previously had gone under my radar in terms of understanding crime and the media. This is the relationship between the media reporting of a crime and the issue of sentencing and judicial involvement as it seems that most of the time the justice system is seeming to fail when it comes to sentencing.

The main concern that seems to be represented is the issue of sentencing in regards to cases that involve sexual assault or as it is often referred to in the general public the issue of rape. It seems as though we as the public are bombarded with the failures of the justice system in dealing out sentencing that is seen to be proportionate to the brutality and horrific nature of the crime. An example of this supposed failure is seen in the appeals case in which a man was acquitted of aggravated sexual assault that he was found guilty for in 09 and is only serving a three year sentence for having repeated sexual intercourse with a child. This article was written in a tone that clearly demonstrates disapproval for this outcome and would obviously spark rage amongst the public as the use of the word 'child' portrays a much more sinister picture then referring to the victim as a 15 year old female.

This got me thinking, how much of this is true and to what degree has the media sensationalised the failures of our justice system in regards to this horrific and degrading crime, are they simply exploiting the publics sensitivity and empathy to sell more articles? It may sound cynical but this was the conclusion I had come to until I stumbled upon research that found two out of three sexual assault related cases result in no conviction due to insufficient evidence and heavy reliance on the "he said she said" concept due to the often private occurrence of these crimes.

Therefore is a combination of the media over-exaggerating the failure of the system in the two out of three cases that result in no conviction or is there actual grounds their tendency to blatantly point out the failures in sentencing? It is however obvious that something needs to be done as less than one third of victims were found to report their sexual assault a number that should be sitting at 100%.

Where to set up the police tape?

The police are a vital part of the justice system, they are at the forefront of protecting the community and "catching the badies", however to what degree does their silence or release of information hinder the publics right to know the facts of a crime. Where is the line drawn between freedom of information and the limited facts released by police?

Its an example that has plagued the papers in the past month or so, Kiesha Abrahams went missing from her home and the picture of the little girl with curly hair and a cheeky grin has tugged on the heart strings of nearly every person in the nation. However entangled amongst this case a series of confusing information reporting can be found, with the media calling the police out on their interviews with particular suspects, such as Keisha's father and step-father, however the police in charge chose to continue to let the media speculate without giving away any clues. Many times it could be read "police have a lead" but not information followed or claiming "everyones a suspect".

To what degree are the police keeping information from the public that is heavily invested and concerned with this missing girl? And is it fair to allow the media enough room to speculate and throw around wild accusations due to a lack of information thereby confusing the public?

However there is the other side of this argument, in the case of drug raids and such it is possible that "loose lips sink ships". To give the media so much information they could deduce when certain undercover police investigations are happening would only lead to criminals being tipped of and running or preparing themselves for fighting the police.

So where does the line get drawn at what information the public is privy to and what must be kept secret in the interest of the public? If history has taught us anything its that secrecy does build power that can corrupt and without the police having to answer to some form of power will their be issues in corruption. It is often the media who draws attention to things such as police brutality, abuse of power and freedom restricting policies so what would stop them from with holding information that may shade them in the wrong light?

This relationship is based on balances of power that could tip to one side if not monitored correctly and yet it also has no black or white answer on how to ensure that one is not favored.