Criminal Justice Opinion Portfolio

Does the Press have too much or too little freedom?

First we must look at the definition of press which means, to act upon with steadily applied weight or force, but the actual definition that we are referring to is, all the media and agencies that print, broadcast, or gather and transmit news, including newspapers, newsmagazines, radio and television news bureaus, and wire services. (http://dictionary.reference.com/)

What rights does the press have? Well, just look at the First Amendment of the Constitution, as it plainly states “Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public press for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution. Not all countries are protected by a bill of rights or the constitutional provision pertaining to Freedom of the Press.” Then we look at the definition of freedom which means, the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. (http://dictionary.reference.com/)

So therefore, with that being said, the author does believe that the press has too much freedom; the freedom of the press is a privilege not a right. So then it can be taken away, if a reporter is found guilty of submitting false information or articles. The author thinks the press has too much freedom because they can somewhat cover any issue or event that happens, no matter what the personal or privacy level is. As well as in most cases the press does not have to give up how they received their information either.

As stated in week ones assignment the press can also be held in contempt, of court, for example if they go to far with information that they gather. Contempt of court means that the individual is willful disobedience to or open disrespect for the rules or orders of a court, which somewhat means an act of showing such disrespect to the judge and the courts. And Journalists are held in contempt mostly for refusing to testify in an investigation of the leak of a CIA or FBI officer's identity, rejecting requests from two media organizations to quash federal grand jury subpoenas seeking information from the media. A reporter for Time magazine was held in contempt of court and was ordered him jailed for refusing to name the government officials who disclosed the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer to him. The Time magazine was also held in contempt and ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 a day.

People, who think that the press has too little freedom, need to reconsider that thought. Because the press can get away with murder, if they ever did do anything like that. There are so many loop holes that the press will find to make sure that they can print and release their articles no matter what the expense is to the individual at hand or the party being reported by the press.

Should the media be used to fight crime?

No, the media should not be used to fight crime, because citizens should not have to live in fear. And if the press decided to use the media to fight crime that will call citizens to unnecessary live in fear. The media already exaggerates crime as it is; do people want to make it worse then what it already is? When people live in fear they co-operate more with 'solutions' authorities propose, for example: ID cards, global warming etc.

It improves the media ratings as well as the media knows a good marketing fact that fear sells. The best example of this is children being kidnapped by strangers. If they look at actual crime statistics they will find that it is very rare for a child to be abducted by a stranger. But if one watches the news they would think that children were being kidnapped every minute.

In the my opinion, I do think that Americans or even people do react too quickly to media coverage in everyway, whether it is in regard to adopt new policies, or anything. And most reactions are improved because of the speed, because of how the social issues are reported so fast and quickly throughout the different types of media. Although, I do not think that the media helps in deterring crime at all and I do think that it causes more fear, not in doing crime. But for the people who watch the evening news and find that the convenient store down the street from their home just got robbed. I think people should be aware of their surroundings, and what goes on in their community but I also think the media sensationalizes some stories.

However, I think the media can be very helpful in the capturing of criminals and with Amber alerts in order to find abducted or missing children. Therefore it does not deter crime, not in the least bit. The people who commit crimes are going to do it no matter how many people they see get caught. If anything there are some people who commit crime just for the minute spot they would get on the evening news.

For individuals, who believe that we should use the media to fight crime, should maybe try considering the pros and cons of the issue. But in some cases, they may feel that the media would help fight crime, but come to think about it that is what criminals want is attention from the media and people. And all the media is doing is giving it to them that what they want so, they can become a famous or widely known criminal on the news.

Should the exclusionary rule be abolished?

The U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (FindLaw, 2000)

The language of the provision which became the Fourth Amendment underwent some modest changes on its passage through the Congress and it is possible that the changes reflected more than a modest significance in the interpretation of the relationship of the two clauses. Madison's introduced version provided ''The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.'' As reported from committee, with an inadvertent omission corrected on the floor, the section was almost identical to the introduced version, and the House defeated