Does the Press Have Too Much or Too Little Freedom - Essay Example

CRIMINAL JUSTICE OPINION PORTFOLIO Issue Does the press have too much or too little freedom? Introduction: The press has always played a very important part in the political, social and cultural life of the country, along with other media such as television, and radio; and the present day internet. The United Nations has since several decades endorsed and promoted free press. The definition by Stevenson (1994: p.120), as quoted in the Information Note (1997-98) of the Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat is as follows: “Freedom of the press is the right to speak, broadcast, or publish without prior restraint by or permission of the government, but with limited legal accountability after publication for violations of law. It may also encompass legal guarantees of access to information, protection of journalists, public’s limited access to the media and right of reply or correction”. Discussion: My position on the issue is that the press should be given complete freedom to function within its own framework of guidelines, and there should be restrictions only on careless or false reporting. My opinion is correct because the public has the right to the true facts of any information of significance, and transparency will ensure decline in corruption. According to the Final Annotated Survey of the State of the First Amendment (2005: p.2), the results show that 47% of the public felt that the amount of freedom the press enjoyed was “about right”, 39% felt that the press had too much freedom, too little freedom was the verdict of only 10%, and the remaining 4% did not know. The viewpoint of the majority is supported by McQuail (2003: p.54) who states that social responsibility theory became an essential point of reference in the growing trend towards the professionalization and self-regulation of the press. Conclusion: The small minority of the public who believe that the press should have less freedom should consider one important reason for freedom of the press: that those in high public office, in businesses or in responsible social posts will need to show results, and also keep free from wrongdoings. Issue 2: Do You Agree or Disagree With the Advancement of Media Technologies for Use in Criminal Justice and Judicial Applications? Introduction: According to Klay; Sewell (1996: p.241) development and application of criminal justice technology for the purpose of individual liberty is possible only in communities that share and perpetuate democratic norms. Emphasizing on “responsible use”, the democratic communitarian theory requres the use of technology to strengthen unity within the community, while exercising restraint and avoiding the creation of potentially threatening technologies. Discussion: My position on the issue is that advancement in media technologies can be very useful in apprehending criminals. In crime scene investigations and in forensic examinations, technology such as DNA analysis has stood in good stead, and has helped identify criminals and to acquit wrongfully incarcerated individuals who could not otherwise prove their innocence. According to ‘Shockwavewriter’(2000: p.18), the United States Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is dealing with high-technology crimes by online miscreants, but the number of such criminals that they are able to convict, is low. The law enforcement agencies will have to develop and use high level media technology to counter the online crimes, in order to maintain a stable society and control crime. Conclusion: Opponents of this view should rethink their stance because, otherwise it will get increasingly difficult for the police force to maintain law and order. Increase in crime rate and more advanced methods of criminal activities makes it necessary to develop and use advanced media technology in criminal justice and judicial applications. in crime rate and more advanced methods of criminal activities makes it necessary to develop and use advanced media tech Issue 3: Should the Exclusionary Rule be Abolished? Introduction: The excusionary rule is the law of search and seizure, and it was meant to safeguard the interests of the prosecuted. In the second clause of the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the exclusionary rule prohibits search warrants from being issued unless they are based on “probable cause”, and supported by the applicant’s oath or affirmation (Acker; Brody, 2004, p 48). It additionally requires that warrants should particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Discussion: My position on the issue is that exclusionary rule should not be abolished. This is because the law enforcement officers cannot search people’s homes or their persons, or to arrest them on the suspicion of a crime. Thus, such seizures cannot be accepted by the court. Acker; Brody (2004: p.48) support the view that the Fouth Amendment places important limits on law enforcement officers efforts to detect and investigate crimes. On the other hand, if the law absolutely forbade the investigation of individuals suspected of committing crimes, the police would be unable to carry out law enforcement functions necessary to protect society and its law-abiding citizens. Hence, only “unreasonable” searches and seizures were banned. Those searches and seizures were particularly approved which were conducted on warrants based on probable cause that particularly describe what or who is to be searched or seized. Conclusion: Why opponents of this issue position should rethink their stance is because this is the only way to protect the rights of the general public, who would otherwise be liable for searches and seizures at any time, over which they will not be able to have any control. Issue 4: Should the Death Penalty be Abolished? Introduction: In the case of Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S.153 (1976), as quoted in Palmer (1998: p.13), the Supreme Court made the observation that: “The Death Penalty is said to serve two principal social purposes: retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders. In part, capital punishment is an expression of society’s moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct. This function is essential in an ordered society which asks its citizens to rely on legal processes rather than self-help to vindicate their wrongs. Certain crimes are so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death”. Discussion: My position on the issue is that the death penalty should not be abolished. In almost all cases of serious crime, the extremely severe consequences which are suffered not only by the victim, but his family and others, actually brings about immeasurable and unrecorded ill-effects on innocent people. I support the Supreme Court view that the death penalty acts as a retribution as well as detterrent from the same thing offences being repeated by others. This view is reiterated by Professor van den Haag, long a leader of the pro-death penalty movement, as quoted in Gottfried ( p.41), “Nature has sentenced us all to death. Execution hastens but does not create the unavoidable end of human life. What makes execution different is that it brands the executed as morally unworthy to belong to human society”. He adds that, “the paramount moral purpose of punishment is retributive justice”. Conclusion: Opponents of my issue position should re-think their stance is because, in almost all cases, the feeling for retribution is strong. Also, the degree of damage done may never be equally given in punishment. Thirdly, rehabilitation of psychopaths and extreme criminals may not be possible. Issue 5. Are Sexual Assault Cases Underprosecuted? Introduction: Developments in international law that relate to the problem of violence against women reflect a slow but gradual improvement in the position of women in societies worldwide (Clark; Sann, 1996: p.262). At the same time, the evolution of international law and a parallel evolution of humanitarian law with greater concern for the honor and safety of women, have had a corresponding liberalizing effect on social attitudes. Specifically under Article 2(b) of the Tribunal’s Statute, the categorization of sexual assault as a grave breach is supported by the 1984 United Nations convention against torture, or other cruel or inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Supporting for prosecuting rape under Article 2(c) of the Statute comes from the ICRC Aide Memoir of December 3, 1992, which asserts that the grave breach of wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health (article 147 of the fourth Geneva Convention) covers rape. Discussion: My position on the issue is that sexual assault cases normally are under prosecuted, because in several cases, they are not reported to law enforcement authorities. An important reason for this is the sense of shame and dishonor felt by the victim and her family, which prevents them from publicizing their plight. In current times, a more retributory stance is adopted, and action is taken to prosecute the criminal, in increasing number of cases. Another reason is that incriminating evidence may not be available if the investigation is not started directly after the crime is committed. Also, celebrities like athletes may not get prosecuted because of their status in society, and the benefit of the doubt being given to them, as they may be victims of wrongful allegations. These are some of the reasons for which sexual assault cases are under prosecuted. Conclusion: Opponents of my issue position should re-think their stance, because only then can positive action be initiated by concerned citizens, who need to build up support for helping the victim by prosecuting the guilty. Issue 6. How Do You Feel About the War on Drugs? Should It Be Continued or Ended? Introduction: According to Rowe (2006: p.1), the magnitude of the United States’ drug abuse problems is great, and is partly reflected today in our burgeoning prison populations and overcrowded courts. We incarcerate more people per capita than any other industrialized nation, and the reason for this is our so-called War on Drugs. The moral stance of feeling the necessity of eradicating the problem is alone not enough in achieving the goal, since effective methods are not being employed. Following the social policy of incarcerating wrong doers, whether for using or selling illicit drugs, only means that huge amounts of money are being completely wasted. While alcohol and tobacco are more lethal, they are permitted for legal use, whereas some mind-altering drugs are banned, and mandatory 20 years imprisonment is imposed for possessing those drugs. Rowe (2006: p.2) suggests some alternate strategies to take control of the war on drugs so that success can be achieved. Federal narcotics legislations and the effects of those laws should be studied, in order to devise new and effective drug policies. Discussion: My position in this issue is that the drug policy needs to be changed completely. Experts in the field should review the range of drugs, and decide which should be banned, and which made legal. Both tobacco and alcohol should be treated as highly lethal based on evidence, and banned as far as possible. By sending thousands of drug users to prison, not only is the prison system taxed beyond its capacity, but the families of the prisoners suffer whether it is a parent of young children who is incarcerated, or young people. Rehabilitating the thousands of prisoners would again be a great burden on federal funds. The prisoners are exploited both as a cheap source of labour and to bring in income through prison industries (Sudbury, 2005: p.63). America’s Prison Industrial Complex, and privatization are classic examples of the breadth and intensity of corporate malfeasance and structural violence. Since the prisoners are mostly African Americans, a new form of slavery is seen in the present day private prisons. Conclusion: Opponents of my issue position should re-think their stance because, otherwise, winning the war on drugs will not be possible. Only by recognizing the failings in the current strategies can new methods be planned and implemented to bring about a permanent solution to the problem of drug abuse. Issue 7. Does the U.S.A. Patriot Act Infringe on Civil Liberties? Introduction: According to Vervaele; Hol (2005: p141), after the 11th of September, new anti-terrorism legislation was elaborated in the United States, resulting in the U.S.A Patriot Act. The Patriot Act has weakened judicial control, but it has significantly enlarged the regular powers of investigation especially in the field of electronic and digital surveillance. Secondly, the Patriot Act has ensured that the FISA security criminal law can be used on a much wider scale. Before the Patriot Act, the FISA was used only for primary foreing intelligence purposes. The Patriot Act has enhanced the FISA to pursue investigative purposes as long as the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information. Thirdly, the Patriot Act has opened up the flow of information from the LEC to the IC and vice versa by breaking down the existing legal dividing wall. Also, the Patriot Act helps the director of the Central Intelligence Agency to ensure that the FISA information is used efficiently and effectively for foreign intelligence work. Discussion: The strengthening of security through Terrorism Information Awareness Network to uncover terrorist and other threats to the infrastructure, and the Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System was done (p.37). Legislative measures for strenthening judicial mechanisms were also done, for harmonizing anti-terrorism policing procedures nationally. Taking into account the electronic and digital surveillance, investigations and implementation of security criminal law on a large scale, my issue position is that the U.S.A. Patriot Act does infringe on civil liberties of the general public and the ordinary citizen, at certain times. The Patriot Act is meant to deal strongly with any further interventions on the security and safety of the nation, and hence may intrude on the privacy of the citizens, during surveillance and investigations. Conclusion: Opponents if my issue position who state that the U.S.A. Patriot Act does not infringe on civil liberties, may have reason to believe so, as they may not yet have come across any experiences wherein they found intrusion in their normal lives. Vervaele; Hol (2005: p.15) state that post September 11, criminal law enforcement strategies include: search, siezure and wire tapping, and national security seems to prevail over civil rights and constitutional safe-guards. Issue 8. Is the U.S. Prepared for Acts of Terror or National Emergencies? Introduction: Stephen Flynn, United States Homeland Security Expert, in a special talk in CNN, on 20th February, 2007, expressed his concerns that the country was leaving itself vulnerable to another terrorist attack, or anatural disaster like Hurricane Katrina. Flynn stated that: “ 1Building resiliency requires three things. First, we must anticipate likely man-made or natural disasters. Second, we must be willing to take prudent actions in advance of these disasters that lower our exposure to their potentially catastrophic consequences. Third, we must be able to mobilize a speedy response and recovery after disasters occur. An estimated ninety percent of Americans now live along locations that are at a high or moderate risk of being hit by a major natural disasters”. Discussion: My position on the issue is that both security as well as preparedness for natural disasters have to be implemented together. As stated by Stephen Flynn, when an aggressive offense against terrorists is the only defense, homeland security and planning for natural disasters end up as lesser priorities. Intelligence is available to identify the enemies and to locate them. But it is also true that there is greater danger of being caught in the cross hairs of a major natural disaster such as an earthquake, flood, forest fire or a hurricane than an attack by terrorists. The potential to threaten the maximum number of lives lies in the H5N1 avian influenza if it should make the evolutionary leap that allows it to spread among humans as quickly and as lethally as it has among birds. Conclusion: Acts of terror and disasters cannot always be prevented, but they do not have to be catastrophic. The key is being willing to invest in public health, emergency planning and community preparedness (Flynn, 2007, CNN). Opponents of my view should rethink their stance because, if the country does not get prepared on a war footing, future problems cannot be faced. REFERENCES Acker, James R; Brody, David C. (2004). Criminal Procedure: A Contemporary Perspective. Canada, Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Clark, Roger Stenson; Sann, Madeleine. (1996). The Prosecution of International Crimes. New Jersey: Transaction Books. Gottfried, Ted. (2002). Death Penalty, The: Justice or Legalized Murder? Connecticut: Twenty-first Century Books. Klay, William Earle; Sewell, James D. (1996). “Communitarianism and Professionalism: A Values Oriented Approach to Criminal Justice Technology”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.52, Issues 2-3, June-July 1996, pp.241-253. McQuail, Denis. (2003). Media Accountability and Freedom of Publication. New York: Oxford University Press. Palmer, Louis J. (1998). The Death Penalty: An American Citizen’s Guide to Understanding Federal and State Laws. North Carolina: McFarland. Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat, Information Note (1997-98): Measuring Press Freedom. Web page: http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr97-98/english/sec/library/in3_plc.pdf Rowe, Thomas C. (2006). Federal Narcotics Laws and the War on Drugs: Money Down a Rat Hole. United States: The Haworth Press, Inc. Shockwavewriter, “The Criminal Justice Systems Today”. Computer Fraud and Society, Volume 2000, Issue 3, March 2000, pp. 18-19. State of the First Amendment (2005): Final Annotated Survey Web site: http://www.cpanda.org/data/a00226/sofa05qst.pdf Sudbury, Julia. (2005). Global Lockdown: Race, Gender, and the Prisons-Industries Complex, United Kingdom: Routledge. Vervaele, John A.E; Hol, Antoine M. (2005). Security and Civil Liberties: The Case of Terrorism. United States: Intersentia. Read More