The media thrives on sensations. Unfortunately the reason the media survives on sensation is because Americans thrive on sensational stories. Americans love to hear who is in rehab, who is having marital problems, and who is doing what. When it comes to crime and violence it is not any different. Crime is sensational because of how it happens. The motives behind crime is what keeps the attention of the media. A woman who murders her spouse because she is mentally ill is not as sensational as the woman who murders her spouse because of a love triangle.
The motive does not matter in the legal world, as no matter how it is clearly murder, but the media will develop the story into the breaking news or the story of the hour. This is because ratings matter and when sensational stories are presented the ratings rise and keep stations in the top position. Many Criminologists have studied the cause and effect the media has had on crime and violence. The media influence theory suggests that the rise in certain criminal actions may be due to the increased levels of violence in diverse forms of media.
Many politicians have interjected in hopes of alleviating some of the attention that violence may receive through media outlets. The media has more influence than people attribute to the different media streams. From radio to video games the media plays a role in the creation of violence. However for the criminals who act out their desires and intentions because they saw it on the television had a more serious problem prior to viewing of the media clip. Should the media be used to fight crime? The media is already used to fight crime but not as much as they should be used.
The media is used to promote police efforts to capture individuals who are suspects or wanted for questioning. The media could be more effective by implementing a program in which they seek these individuals on a regular basis and not only when a high profile case comes to light. As well, if the media would use their resources criminals of all types could be brought to the criminal system sooner. It seems the media involves itself into sensational stories in which they envelope themselves and forget about the more important areas of the news, like reducing the crime rate in Americans Cities.
The media is the most effective way to apprehend a criminal and to encourage people to make the right choices. Even though it seems logical many groups and organizations have intercepted the use of the mass media in this manner. Rights groups and advocates have interjected the use by arguing that the use of the media in such a manner would be a violation of a right, whether it be a human right or constitutional right, the media has not been used to its full potential.
America’s Most Wanted television show on Fox is one of the best examples of using media to apprehend criminals and to reduce the crime rate. Americas Most Wanted showcases criminals who are wanted for crimes they committed. While not full proof AMW has been rather successful at apprehending some of the most dangerous criminals who committed violent crimes. The use of the media with AMW should be used as an example and a model for every station to implement a program such as that. Excessive use of force is NOT a systematic problem in the police department
Does excessive force really exist in the police departments? Excessive police force is the publics cry for attention. Why do the police have to result to force at all, simply put because the criminals require it. It is not justified that a civilian can assault a police officer and yet a police officer is reprimanded because they fight back. A police officer is faced daily with the possibility of death and yet civilians feel the need to cause more grief and aggravation to an already tense situation. The actions of stupidity by the public do not make police use of force excessive.
The use of force is not proper when it is an officer who is acting of authority and that is their basis, but when a police officer is defending their life and in pursuit of their daily activities they are in the right to use force to protect them selves. They too have families and lives other than their jobs. While the use of force is more prevalent in larger metropolitan areas this has been attributed to the police officers daily witnessing of the duties of their jobs, almost that they become desensitized and that results in the police officer using force to maintain order.
The police department has been under fire with the rotten apple theory. One bad police officer labels the other officers in the eyes of the public. However, a systematic problem is created when there is no crime and the police are acting out their own aggressions and ill will on random people. . How do you feel about the recent death penalty legislation? in (NEW YORK The death penalty is essential in America. In many countries they do not believe in capital punishment but if the United States of America would dispose of the death penalty crime would be on an immediate rise and would cause problems from the economy to security.
The death penalty while argued by some as being unconstitutional is not unconstitutional. The death penalty serves as deterrence to crime and serves as the deterring factor to criminals. The removal of the death penalty from any judicial process is removing deterrence to crime and allowing criminals to live a life they would live outside the prisons. The prisons are already providing criminals with much more than they are entitled too however individual groups and advocates have made living in jail a luxury and actually enticing people who do not know better to live in jail.
When people are considering the crime under the Choice Theory criminals will weigh the benefits with the consequences. Under this theory people and only the individual is responsible for their actions and choices. Under the New York legislation the death penalty should be reinstated and the death penalty needs to be used to deter crime and not allow people to continue commit crimes. Without the death penalty we are a country without justice. Are sexual assault cases UNDER prosecuted?
Yes, sexual assault cases are under prosecuted. After the legislative and procedural changes in the rape laws many supporters thought the sexual assault cases would be a positive effect and bring light to the cases. However, the sexual assault cases are under prosecuted, even though it could be due to the lack of evidence but it is attributed to the facts surrounding the assault. Many victims actually chose not to pursue the charges due to the fact that an astounding number of victims who know their victim.
Contrary to the belief that rapists are hiding in the bushes or in the shadows of the parking garage, almost two-thirds of all rapes were committed by someone who is known to the victim. 73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger — 38% of perpetrators were a friend or acquaintance of the victim, 28% were an intimate and 7% were another relative. By the time the prosecuting time arrives the individual parties have reconciled and no longer wish to persue the matter legally. While the victims have mixed emotions they forget that they are a victim not only to the crime but to the entire situation.
Sexual crimes need to be prosecuted more and the prosecution can not let the victim decide. While the physical evidence is less than sufficient in some cases in most cases the evidence is more than sufficient. Should Parole be Abolished? In the United States parole simply means that a criminal is on a supervised release from the criminal justice system. Many criminals attempt to use jail as rehabilitation and upon entering back into society on the parole system they fall victim to the hellacious temptations that resulted in their visit to the jail and prison systems.
Good behavior alone will not permit an inmate to be released on parole. Many factors are taken into consideration such as the seriousness of the crime, the individual’s criminal conduct, their conduct while incarcerated. At the end of 2004 over 4 million Americans in the United States were being supervised on parole or probation. Among offenders on probation, half (50 percent) had been convicted for committing a felony, 49% for a misdemeanor, and 1% for other infractions. Seventy percent of probationers were being actively supervised at the end of 2005; 9% were inactive cases and 10% had absconded.
While the majority of offenders on parole had been convicted of committing a felony, less than half were on parole for a misdemeanor. Is it fair to society to allow felons back into society in which they can easily escape without notice until their parole officer discovers their absence? Offenders who are found guilty of committing misdemeanors should be the only offenders who are permitted to be released on parole. The parole system in America needs to be overhauled in order to completely be effective, efficient and to serve the purpose for which it was designed and implemented to achieve.
Should intelligence operations be expanded? The Intelligence Operations within the United States are expanded as far as they are capable of expanding at this time. With a threat of national security every day and the actual reality since 9/11 has caused the FBI and CIA to be working over time. As a result of the 9/11 Commission in which the Senators wanted to point fingers and place blame on other political figures the agencies are doing the best to ensure the safety and security of the Nation.
In order to expand the intelligence operations an increase in taxes would have to occur as well as a reduction of freedoms and rights guaranteed by and through the United States Constitution. Once you give people a right or privilege you can not take it away from them and the Intelligence operations can not expand at this point without reducing freedoms. If the United States would have a better control over travelers and visitors of other nations it would assist the Intelligence agencies in achieving their goals. However because the United States is the melting pot of the free world, it will be absolutely impossible to achieve such a goal.
With the stress and constant worries of a country with great power the Intelligence groups can not be increased only improved. The improvements recommended are to focus more on the threats to American society and to American welfare. When you neglect the obvious, it is the obvious that comes to light. Should police agencies be used for National Security? Police Officers are already used for National Security to some level. The police officers should be used for national security with restrictions. A police officer is doing their job for employment purposes.
They are no different than the employee of IBM or a pitcher for the Red Sox and if the latter two can be mandated to be used for National Security then police officers should be used as well. It is rather incomprehensible to think that a police officer would have to be forced to defend and protect the National Security merely because of their profession. A person who serves as a police officer chose their profession for many reasons and by mandating police officers to be used for National Security will deter many police officers from enrolling at academies and pursuing the profession of a police officer.
With the police being used as national security police they would not be different from the military and the soldiers. If the national security would rely on police officers they would have to enroll in the military or be established as a branch of the military in order to serve and protect the nation. Police officers already defend national security as they defend and protect individual cities, boroughs, townships, and the such. They defend the individual territories of the country which comprise the United States of America.