Privacy rights and Press Freedoms
In recent years the press has sensationalized topics of sex and violence that has spurred sales, yet lay waste to the public that it directly includes (Press Freedom, 2006). Advocates of the press declare and pronounce their first amendment rights when questioned about their tactics for sales and what is genuinely news; opposition would more directly see public domain be given the jurisdiction to press freedoms, rather than the private lives of individuals (Press Freedom, 2006). Yet the constitution does not give boundaries to the freedoms of speech; yet time and time again reporting interests of the media conflict with citizen’s private rights when libelous material is considered the preferred news. “Permissive libel laws have given the media a free ticket to print sensationalized and biased articles that can ruin people’s lives.” (Press Freedom, 2006, p.1) These practices are creating a drive for demands on media limits. Although these tactics are now used by all media outlets the news industry and the freedoms of speech are under a blanket partnership; if one is producing and publishing libel material, the consensus by the public might insinuate, they all are. So that begs; are the media a real cause of added violence in crime or do they report simply what they see? Despite the few limitations to the press by governmental laws and regulations, the United States still can recognize the reality that it maintains a free press. With the freedoms allowed through the first amendment, the media is not limited to the accuracy of events but can have their own fiction or non-fictional version of events that generally can lead to additional crimes by a viewing public. These open gaps generally addressed by choice are the targets attacked by proponents of free speech, arguing a reduction in crime with added press control would improve crime statistics. Criminal Justice Applications of the Media
I do not believe that media agencies effectively deter crime in either categories being referred to as juvenile and adult where the wrong issues are being confronted. Through studies poverty has been a common denominator to criminal activity. And until poverty issues can be addressed deterrence will be a hope that never comes to light in impoverished communities. The targeting elements of the campaigns by these agencies stems around preventing drugs, prostitution (the richer income means) and violence (the enforcing – much like the higher class has the police). In juveniles these campaigns I believe may have some positive impact. However, there is always a difference from classroom and reality, as well as children relying on someone else and adults relying on themselves. I do believe that by the Medias methods of reporting crime causes undo pressure or intended misconceptions that has lost the media its believability when offering reasonable methods of avoidance or deterrence in the past, based on their method of delivery or lack of. However, in the opposite side of the argument, police use the media to help locate suspects or for the added attention a case may need, especially when they have a photo, bust, sketch or video but no identity. So in all fairness I must say that the media does deter crime but also it adds to the crime. I believe that the example of Americas Most Wanted (AMW) would not interfere with the reporting of crimes on a larger scale if another agency was to claim the bragging rights to the capture of a fugitive. It could increase the awareness by more viewers by being introduced by a multitude of forums. This awareness could become a deterrent in its own right through the knowledge that it WILL be seen by many, there is nowhere to hide. Should the Exclusionary Rule be Abolished
Exclusionary rules (suppression of evidence) are used as deterrents for police misconduct. Rules that are set so that police officers will know that if they violate the 4th...