In Getty’s (2001) article, she emphasized that corrections must increase its relationship with the media and with the public so that it will not be misunderstood. So, based on this main idea, I believe she doesn’t think that the image constructed by the media is accurate. It is not accurate in the sense that the corrections exposure to the media is less than the crime committed by the offenders.
Thus she regarded the corrections as has largely been a silent component of the criminal justice system. Hence she believed that the media should play it’s part in informing the public about the status of our correctional system so that the public and decision-makers, our politicians especially will know the reality of corrections.
Some specific examples in which media reports concerning crime where inaccurate or misleading as a result of lack of context or sensationalism is the media coverage of September 11th and the War on Terror: disproportionately focused on violence, creative of misperceptions of one’s true risk of becoming a victim of such terrorism, ignorant of some key facts and issues about the causes and effects of terrorism, neglectful in failing to provide a context for the attacks, and creative of much fear and anxiety.
Clearly, the media shape our worldview about crime and criminal justice. Once the law has defined certain acts as crimes, the media tend to cover those acts that are the most unusual, bizarre, and violent. Coverage of criminal justice is front-loaded, focused on police but rarely on corrections or the reality of plea bargaining in courts. The American media is controlled by large corporations, which are concerned first and foremost with ensuring profits, the media sell crime to Americans—“if it bleeds, it leads.
” The media’s coverage of criminal justice is biased in favor of “get tough” approaches to reducing crime. All of this threatens justice and due process in the United States. Using the media as their mouthpieces, politicians are more likely trying to incite the public about impending doom in the form of crime in this country. They claim that we need a “war” to stop crime. When politicians and the media use terms like war, it suggests to the public that crime must be “fought” rather than “prevented.
”The costs to Americans include the failure to either do justice or reduce crime. Huff (2002) discusses the causes and consequences of wrongful convictions in the criminal justice system. Discuss at least three of these causes that you find particularly alarming. Three common causes of wrongful convictions I personally find particularly alarming is eyewitness error, in criminal justice, police and prosecutorial overzealousness, and false/coerced confessions.
The most common cause and is responsible for more than half of wrongful convictions, is eyewitness error—that is, victims and witnesses who pick out the wrong person even though they The criminal justice process serves to reinforce the likelihood that innocent people will be wrongly convicted. For example, witnesses and victims may see a photo lineup or actual physical lineup of real people and then choose one as the offender. From that point on, the face of the person picked will be the offender, even if it is not the actual offender.
When asked to pick out the offender in court, witnesses and victims will point to that person as the offender because his or her identity matches that of the person picked out from the lineup. The memory of the face from the crime may be replaced with the memory of the face from the lineup. That this may be the wrong face is not considered by the person, who is convinced that he or she has chosen the right person (e. g. , see Brown, Defenbacher, and Sturgill 1977) may truly believe that the people they have identified are the real criminals.
The second significant wrongful conviction is police and prosecutorial overzealousness: which is according to Huff, Rattner, and Sagarin (1996), the anxiety to solve a case; the ease with which one having such anxiety is willing to believe, on the slightest evidence of the most negligible nature, that the culprit is in hand; the willingness to use improper, unethical, and illegal means to obtain a conviction when one believes that the person at the bar is guilty. (p. 64, emphasis in original) As for overzealousness by police and prosecutors, I restrict my discussion to the
following main point: People must expect the police and prosecutors to pursue arrests and convictions zealously (in the pursuit of justice as an outcome); it is the current “tough on crime” environment that makes overzealousness more likely. Huff, Rattner, and Sagarin (1996, p. 71) write that such overzealousness might come from a desire to add points to a scorecard, to enhance a reputation as a tough and successful prosecutor because of an impending election, or to receive commendation and promotion in the police department for having nabbed a vicious criminal and solved a difficult case . . . may sometimes derive from the inability, unwillingness, or lack of funds and personnel available to police to make true and proper investigations . . . [and] might also conceal bigotry and racism, or sometimes greed.
Other sources of overzealousness may be “the inability, unwillingness, or lack of funds and personnel available to police to make true and proper investigations. ”