The Relationship Between Using Cultural Text & Criminal Justice Policy (Essay Sample)

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONSUMPTION OF CULTURAL TEXTS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY
by (Name)
Class/Course Name
Tutor
School
City, State
Date
The Relationship between the Consumption of Cultural Texts and Criminal Justice Policy
Cultural texts refer to symbols, storytelling methods and sign techniques that influence and contribute to the culture of a society (Peak & Carah 2017). They constitute behaviours, actions, and objects that have an underlying cultural connotation. Notably, some research areas in cultural criminology are informed by the researchers’ consumption of several mediated texts that spread images of crime and crime control. The mass media and related culture industries generate a continuous flood of crime texts and images that are appropriated by media audiences to be used in certain social scenarios and that influence criminal justice policy (Matthews 2014). This essay will explore the relationship between cultural texts such as crime documentaries, violent films, and media representation of crime and criminal justice policies adopted. The paper asserts that the media plays an important role in raising backing for punitive criminal justice policies by exuding a preference for sensational crime coverage and occasioning a public fear of crime.
Maratea and Monahan (2013) use the contend that mediated crime and punishment discourse is responsible for the institutionalisation of hyper-punitive measures as permissible social control forms in what is referred to as the gonzo rhetoric. They assert how Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona effectively applied the gonzo rhetoric in Maricopa County and contend that the widespread appeal of these techniques to people could be attributed to institutionalised cultural practices of the media. The gonzo rhetoric to crime refers to the creation of emotionally charged stories of injustice and law breaking that justify the use of hyper-punitive measures of social and crime control. Maratea and Monahan (2013) contend that the media promotes the presentation of crime as a mediated public spectacle, offering evocative storylines that decode matters of crime and justice, and angling itself as the tool to stigmatise and avert future deviant conduct. One media practice that has institutionalised the gonzo rhetoric in crime control is the dependence of public officials to issue statements on crime and measures to increase safety in the society. This permits the gonzo proponents to paint an out-of-control crime scenario that ought to be tackled by an instant, definite, and hyper-punitive response. The media seeking out these public figures for comments on crime gives the latter immense power to shape public opinion and policy. The contemporary media generally highlights the colourful elements of crime and punishment rather than offering meaningful contextual analysis, which leads to coverage that is devoid of critical assessment and that provides an implied or explicit justification of “get tough” strategies of controlling crime. Furthermore, the gonzo rhetoric is propagated by the contemporary media preference for content that is shocking or alarming and that can draw the attention of mass media outlets (Lundman 2003). This U.S. media sensationalising of crime and the attention it has paid to the gonzo rhetoric largely contributed to U.S.’s unrelenting transition towards “tough on crime” approaches since end of the twentieth century.
Beale (2006) contends that the market-oriented treatment of crime in the American news media can potentially tip public perception, increasing backing for punitive policies such as the treatment of juveniles as adults, longer sentences, and mandatory minimums. Via priming and agenda setting, the media raises public worry about crime and makes a stance on crime a significant benchmark in evaluating leaders. Having brought attention to the issue, the media advocates for punitive policies. Beale (2006) asserts that the media coverage of crime in the late twentieth century was partly responsible for the shift in the U.S. criminal justice system policies to more punitive measures. Media content is influenced by marketing and economic factors that supersede conventional journalistic benchmarks for newsworthiness. This phenomenon is evident in local and national TV coverage of crime that is modified to meet apparent viewer demand and advertising techniques that often stress certain demographics with a preference for violence. Most news media devote a large portion of their broadcast to violent crimes grounded on an entertainment model. Similarly, newspapers rely on crime tales as a cost-effective means of grabbing the audience’s attention. The same trend is observed with television stations that modify the violence level in entertainment programs to appeal to certain demographics to advertise products to them and counter popular programs in competitor channels. This has seen the rise in the coverage of violent crime that has taken a tabloid dimension. These marketing and economic factors influence the public’s consumption of crime stories in the media, which influence public opinion, and finally criminal justice policy.
Notably, despite falling crime rates, the network news experienced an avalanche of crime stories at the turn of the twenty first century due to the changing economic pressures the networks faced and the pursuit of profits that caused networks to shift from hard news to tabloid-fashioned crime tales. U.S. citizens assert that they obtain significant crime data from the media with the leading media source for this information being television news followed by primetime newsmagazine then local newspapers. Most individuals believe that the information they obtain from these sources is true and fair. Some scholars argue that the media has little effects on people due to several mediating factors such as discriminatory exposure to media aligned with their views, different perceptions, and discriminatory retention in tandem with people’s likes. Conversely, evidence underscores the role of the media in heightening the significance of crime in the public and promoting punitive policies and this is backed by survey research and experimental simulations (Beale 2006). While the media does not solely shape public opinion, it intermingles with and buttresses other crucial factors such as politics and culture to raise punitiveness.
The media influences criminal justice policies through priming and agenda setting. Agenda setting is the capacity of the media to bring certain issues to the attention of the public while priming is the media’s capacity to influence the viewers’ criteria for evaluating leaders, officials, and policies. Through a mix of agenda setting and priming, the media instils crime in the minds of its audiences as a striking issue, which causes an exaggerated perception of crime in comparison to actual world statistics. Agenda setting increases with the placement of stories as “lead stories,” and when viewers lack a personal interaction with the issue. Once the agenda is set, the media primes viewers to consider these issues as warranting more political focus. Priming is grounded on cognitive accessibility theory that asserts that people rely on subconscious shortcuts, such as most accessible information, to make judgements. It is no doubt that the media augments the public perception on the significance of crime; different theories attempt to explain the means through which the public backing for policies that are more punitive.
Several mechanisms have been advanced to explain the increased support for punitiveness, these include the framing effect of the media, the media’s creation of fear in its audience that provokes an emotional reaction, and the presentation of crime in racial terms, which elicits racism and support for punitive measures. In this context, framing refers to media’s selective emphasis on crime stories, which accentuates certain values, feelings and ideas more than others, directs the viewers to particular conclusions, and promotes certain lines of thought. Framing can be episodic or thematic. Thematic media framing of a broader issue complete with detailed analysis, commentary, and statistics draws attention to a broader political and social issue. Conversely, episodic framing, which focuses on individuals, increases backing for punitive measures as viewers ascribe crimes to the personal attributes of the offenders (Cochran, Boots & Heide 2003). For instance, a study revealed that alterations in the media framing of race occasioned subtle adjustments in racial policy preferences (Kellstedt 2000). Besides, the use of scripts or stock prices may promote attitudes towards punitive policies and stimulate racial stereotypes. Scripts are sequential events that increase expectations by individuals. A standard script for local news crime coverage shapes public opinion as it reinforces stereotypes.
Similarly, some scholars postulate that media emphasis on violent crime increases the support for punitive policies by eliciting a fear of crime in the audience. This school of thought argues that fearful people elect for instant and extreme remedies to the crime issue causing them to be inclined to punitive preferences. Notably, the evidence linking fear of crime to punitive policies is inconsistent with some studies negating the significance of the factor. Studies link heightened fear to news media exposure. Besides, the role of the news media in triggering fear is acknowledged in research on the effect and formation of social panics that have informed certain punitive criminal laws. Moral panics allude to periods of suddenly heightened public anxiety over a threat posed by a condition or group to the well-being of the society (...