The Role of the Media in Society - Essay Example

Critical Essay Name: Institution: Date: Introduction The delivery of community corrections is carried out in highly charged political environment often played out in the media hence affecting is effectiveness. There are many debates that are going on regarding the role and importance of community corrections to the modern society (Graycar & Grabosky, 2002). Community corrections can be described as any activity that is carried out by agents of government for the purpose of assisting offenders to establish or reestablish law-abiding roles within the society or community while monitoring their behaviour for criminal activity at the same time (Jefferies, 2003). Helping and monitoring offenders while within the society protects it from criminal predation without the exchequer has to bear the financial burden of incarceration of all of its offenders. Incarceration comes with other costs to the community (Johnson, 2004; Norval & Tonry, 1990). Sending each felony offender to prison is normally counterproductive. However, the general public does not embrace the idea of probation since it suffers from a “soft on crime image” and it is viewed as permissive, not caring about crime victims, and advocating for a rehabilitative ideal but ignoring the reality of predatory, violent criminals (Gelb, 2006). Permitting minor offenders within the community under probation supervision to demonstrate that they can be law-abiding citizens is beneficial to the society. The media has contributed to the community corrections being viewed as a soft way of punishing criminals when in the real sense there are many benefits attached to it than sending every offender to prison. The media leads in shaping public opinion on community corrections when it highlights more cases of people who failed to reform than many success stories. This essay discusses the influence of opinion shapers and the media on the effectiveness of the community corrections. Discussion The role of the media in the society cannot be underestimated and often the politically charged environment is due to the existence of the media that highlights important issues which shapes public opinion. Public opinion with regard to sentencing is very significant. Public opinion has a great influence on the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system and this has a role to play on the ability of the system to operate effectively (Clear & Dammer, 2003). Moreover, public attitudes are an important element in the shaping of sentencing policy. Results of some studies show that Australian public considers offender age, offense history and offense type when determining the most suitable purpose of sentencing (Spigelman, 2005; Buckman, Livingstone & Lynch, 2003) Citizens hold the belief that when sentencing young and first-time offenders and less serious offenses are the most important goal for rehabilitation. On the other hand, punishment was considered more frequently for repeat and serious offenders. Media and political influence impact on capacity building, allocation of resources and public safety. It is important for all stakeholders and policy makers to be educated on the importance of supervision or community correction (von Hirsch, 1990; Warner et al, 2010). Misrepresentation of facts in the media and having the wrong narrative for political opinion influence the amount of resources that is allocated to correctional facilities. Strained budgets can lead to failure of community corrections and the individual cases are picked up and sensationalized in the media to the chagrin of the public (Hua & Fitzgerald, 2006). A highly charged political environment that is represented in the media does not lay emphasis on the importance and usefulness of community correction but portrays the programs as lesser punishments for serious crime. There are various opinions held by political leaders on the effectiveness of community corrections that are usually highlighted in the media (Cunneen, 2001). Community corrections provide viable alternatives to the incarceration for offenders at the various levels of the criminal justice process. There are issues that can be linked to community corrections such as reduction of prisons’ populations, cost-savings, humanitarianism, effectiveness, and public opinion. Community corrections’ cost is an issue that has been continually debated (Indermaur, 1990) Community correctional programs focus on the use of community alternatives being less costly as compared to traditional incarceration, while some people argue that community programs eventually cost more than the traditional incarceration. Whereas community incarceration is seemingly less costly than incarceration, it is not appropriate to use the cost aspect in advocating for community corrections alternatives (Weatherburn et al, 2009; Tomaino, 1998) Close to ninety percent of the cost of running a prison is relatively fixed hence a small reduction in prison counts cannot result into enormous cost savings (ABS, 2014). Community sanctions are described as alternative to incarceration. In many circumstances community corrections have usually failed to lead to reduction in the prison populations. In many circumstances alternatives to incarceration are often advocated for in the absence of mechanisms of ensuring that they are actually applied as alternatives (Clawson, Bogue & Joplin, 2005; Malloch & McIvor, 2013). ). The use of community corrections also faces the challenge of the reluctance of the judicial to impose community sanctions (Hayes & Daly, 2004). Alternatives to imprisonment can have very little impact on the population within prison walls where community corrections failures are given prison terms automatically. A survey done by South Australian Sunday newspaper, the Sunday Mail, indicated that many readers preferred prison sentence for minor offenders than other form of punishment. The newspaper continued to indicate how criminal sentences are often inadequate and advocated for tougher punishments (Israel, 1998; Schwartz & Israel, 2000) An editorial piece in the same newspaper argued that punishment for offenders were too low and urged the state to get redneck (Apel & Sweeten, 2010; Shute, 2004). The newspaper did not highlight the importance of community corrections in easing the congestion in the brick and mortar prisons. Such opinions by mainstream medium make it impossible for community corrections to be a success in any community since the offenders will be victimized and regarded as getting a lesser punishment for the crime they committed (Drake & Barnoski, 2006). The value for probation or parole was not underscored by the media but instead so suspension of sentencing and probation as a lesser punishment for the offenders. Many people have been concerned about the purpose of community corrections programs and viewed them as having achieved very little since 1970 (Carnaby, 1998). The value of such programs has been questioned for a long time generating heated debates in the public and political circles. According to the newspaper survey the media has done very little in educating the public on the importance or value of the community corrections programs. The general notion in the public that a probation sentence is like getting away with crime is a perception that is not shared by the offenders. The offender gets a prison sentence following conviction that is often suspended in the course of proving that he is capable to living a normal law-abiding life. This sentence remains in the conscience of the offender’s heads like a guillotine ready to drop is they do not offer that proof (De Vaus, 2004; Kuziemko, 2013). Several studies have demonstrated that experienced offenders who have been in prison, served on probation and been paroled often will prefer prison to other forms of probation like intensive supervision and day reporting. Probation calls for offenders to work, be willing to undergo treatment, and carry out other orderly requirements that hardened criminals are not inclined to (Hayes & Daly, 2003). Service a sentence in prison becomes easier for them than community corrections that are viewed as a heavy burden. Some of the offenders know beforehand that they will end up in prison since they are not ready to live within the probation terms (McGuire & Priestley, 1995). Less involved offenders find it easy to serve on probation by being imprisoned since they want to maintain connection with their families, communities and their jobs. If an offender is unable to live to the conditions of a probation term, the prison sentence is immediately applied (Solomon, Kachnowski & Bhati, 2005; Clear, 2005). Politics of the day influence budget allocation for community corrections and success of the programs. The public outrage on the use of community corrections to punish offenders shows the misunderstanding on the purpose of out of prison sentences given for offenders. Conclusion The media play an important role in shaping public opinion on significant issues in the society. The media has to take an active role in representing facts and explaining to the public the importance of community corrections program and how it complements the brick and mortar prisons. The delivery of community corrections happens in a highly charged political environment often played out in the media and hence affecting its effectiveness. Policy makers listen to the surrounding politics regarding correctional facilities and the public attitude towards community corrections. The media could play an important role of educating the people on the importance of community corrections. However, it is the media that leads in castigating the essence of such programs and calls for tougher punishments for minor offenders. The survey carried out by the Sunday Mail shoes exactly how the media does not play a positive role in advocating for community corrections and instead supports prison sentences for petty offenders. The community, political leaders and the media have to support the role played by community corrections in the rehabilitating criminals who are not repeat offenders. Offenders feel criminalized if the media sensationalize the role of community corrections as ineffective in turning around criminals. Media reporting and political utterances hinder the effectiveness of community corrections. Community corrections’ delivery would be effective if they did not happen in a highly charged political environment. References Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2014. Corrective services Australia, March quarter 2014. cat. no. 4512. Canberra: ABS Apel, R.J. & Sweeten, G. (2010). Propensity score matching in criminology and criminal justice, in Piquero AR & Weisburd D (eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology. New York: Springer: 543–562 Buckman, J., Livingstone, M. & Lynch, M. (2003). Youth justice: criminal trajectories. Brisbane: Crime and Misconduct Commission Carnaby, H. (1998). Road to nowhere: a report on the housing and support needs of women leaving prison in Victoria. Collingwood: Flat Out. Clawson, E., Bogue, B., & Joplin, L. (2005). Implementing evidence-based practices in corrections: Using an integrated model. Boston, MA: Crime and Justice Institute. Clear, T. (2005). Places not cases? Re-thinking the probation focus. The Howard Journal, 44(2): 172-184. Clear, T. & Dammer, H. (2003). The offender in the community, second edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning Cunneen, C. (2001). Conflict, politics and crime: Aboriginal communities and the police. Sydney: Allen & Unwin De Vaus D (2004). Surveys in social research, 4th ed. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Drake, E. & Barnoski, R. (2006). The effects of parole on recidivism: Juvenile offenders released from Washington State institutions. Final report. Document no. 06–05–1203. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Gelb, K. (2006). Myths and Misconceptions: Public Opinion versus Public Judgment about Sentencing, Sentencing Advisory Council, July, p7-10 Graycar, A. & Grabosky, P. (2002). Crime in Australia, in Grabosky P and Graycar A (eds), The Cambridge handbook of Australian criminology. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press: 7–26 Hayes, H. & Daly, K. (2004). Conferencing and re-offending in Queensland, Australian and New Zealand journal of criminology 37(2): 167–191 Hayes, H. & Daly, K. (2003). Youth justice conferencing and reoffending. Justice quarterly 20(4) 725–760. Hua, J. & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Matching court records to measure reoffending. Crime and Justice Bulletin no. 95. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Indermaur, D (1990) Perceptions of Crime Seriousness and Sentencing: a Comparison of Court Practice and the Perceptions of a Sample of the Public and Judges, Criminology Research Council, Canberra. Israel, M (1998) 'Telling Stories of Crime in South Australia', Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol 31, pp 213-229. Jefferies, S. (2003). Transforming the criminal courts: managerialism, consumerism, therapeutic jurisprudence and change. Report to the Criminology Research Council Johnson, (2004). Drugs and Crime: A Study of Incarcerated Female Offenders, Australian Institute of Criminology, xiv. Kuziemko, P. (2013). How should inmates be released from prison? An assessment of parole versus fixed-sentence regimes, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(1): 371–424. Malloch, M. & McIvor, G. (2013). Women, Punishment and Social Justice: Human Rights and Penal Practices, New York: Routledge. McGuire, J & Priestley, P (1995) 'Reviewing "What Works": Past, Present and Future' in McGuire, J (1995) (ed) What Works: Reducing Offending, John Wiley, Chichester, pp 3-34. Norval, M., & Tonry, M. (1990), Between Prison and Probation¾Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System, Oxford University Press, New York. Schwartz, M & Israel, M (2000) 'Born in the USA- Importing American Fears of Random Crime', Current Issues in Criminal Justice, vol 11, pp 337-342. Shute, D. (2004). Does parole work? The empirical evidence from England and Wales. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 2: 315–331. Solomon, AL, Kachnowski V & Bhati, A (2005). Does parole work? Analyzing the impact of postprison supervision on re-arrest outcomes. Washington: Urban Institute Spigelman J AC, (2005). A New Way to Sentence for Serious Crime, Address for the annual opening of Law Term Dinner of the Law Society of NSW, Sydney, Tomaino, J (1998) Revising Conventional Wisdom: the Impact of Informed Decision Making on Ranking Offence Seriousness and Penalty Severity in Victoria, PhD Thesis, La Trobe University. von Hirsch, A. (1990). The Ethics of Community-Based Sanctions', Crime and Delinquency, vol. 36, no. 1, January, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California. Warner et al K., (2010). Jury Sentencing Survey, Report to the Criminology Research Council, April 2010, p8 Weatherburn, D., Froyland, G., Moffatt, S., & Corben, S. (2009). Prison populations and correctional outlays: The effect of reducing re-imprisonment. Crime and Justice Bulletin no. 138. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Read More