Journal of the Institute
Yüklə 1,2 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Filing/Transfer Mechanism Type JDCC
- County Judicial Waiver Concurrent Jurisdiction
- Reverse Waiver Once/ Always Adult
- Number of Times Filing Mechanism Used by County An Overview of the Relationship between Juvenile School Shootings, and the Media Scott Chenault
- Attitudes Influenced by Media
- The Media and Policy Decisions
|
Source: Authors’ adaptation of Sickmund’s Juveniles in Court Appendix B
An Overview of the Relationship between Juvenile School Shootings, and the Media Scott Chenault* Over the past decade a new crime emerged in the world of juvenile justice that has already had an enormous impact on policy nationwide. The crime is the now infamous occurrence of school shootings. These shootings are heinous mass murders performed by juveniles who open fire on their own schools, for a variety of reasons, and with a wide range of lethality. The most infamous of these shootings is, of course, the incident which occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. However, school shootings have taken place nationwide ranging from Springfield, Oregon, to Palm Beach, Florida (Lewis 2001). In total these school shootings have claimed the lives of well over 50 people, and wounded over 100 (Wallace 2001). However, while the loss of any life, especially that of a juvenile is tragic, the death totals of these incidents do not amount to a sweeping crime wave. Yet, several laws have been introduced to combat these shootings which seem to suggest that the shootings are a major threat to public safety. In addition, school districts have become increasingly aggressive in efforts to remove the possibility of violence from the school. While this is in theory a noble goal, the lengths to which administrators have gone hardly seem representative of the need as expressed by the above numbers. Why has such an emphasis been placed on the phenomenon of school shootings, by legislators, and by school districts? The answer lies with the elusive topic of public opinion. Public opinion carries a great deal of influence with both legislators, and with school administrators. Public opinion must be consistently suggesting that the issue of school shootings is of great importance, in order to have such a drastic impact on policy decisions. Before entering into a discussion of why public opinion leans this way it is important to first understand how public opinion is formed. Public opinion is really a collection of information compiled from four sources; personal experiences, significant others, social groups and institutions, and the mass media (Repenning et. al. 2001). Individual’s personal experiences create a set of values within a person through which all other events are examined. Therefore, although a group of people may see the same event unfold they could each have a different view of the causes for the event. Obviously the number of things that an individual can experience is limited by time; therefore, the other three factors also influence what an individual’s opinions are (Repenning et. al. 2001). The experiences of significant others, combine with the influences of social groups and institutions to form what is termed a symbolic reality (Repenning et. al. 2001). This reality is formed to help fill in some of the lack of genuine experience when forming opinions. The final factor in forming public opinion is the media, which creates a “social reality.” This “social reality” is defined as; “the process in which people formulate the knowledge obtained from the media to construct a picture of the world as well as an image of reality in which individuals base their actions” (Surette 1998). This social reality is heavily relied upon to create public opinion in chief because of the lack of personal experience with most issues. For example, there is not a single person who has directly experienced a murder, and few who have had any experience with the issue, but the media can provide a great deal of knowledge on the subject. As explained above the media plays an enormous role in shaping public opinion. This is especially true in matters of criminal justice, as few people have experienced a direct contact with the criminal justice system. The question therefore becomes; do the media accurately portray the world of criminal justice? A brief answer can be found in two sets of data regarding juvenile crime. First, according to official justice department crime statistics, in 1999 the juvenile arrest rate for homicide reached its lowest level since the 1960s (Benekos et. al. 2002). This indicates a sharp decrease in the level of violent juvenile crime. However, according to a 2001 report in Corrections Today 62% of adults believe that juvenile crime is increasing (Klug 2001). This contradiction illuminates the need to explore the relationship between the media and juvenile crime, specifically school shootings. When discussing the media, in regard to juvenile justice, the primary source of information is the news, be it television or print. According to Barak, there are two major types of news stories disorder news, and routine activities news (Barak 1994). Disorder news stories are those that focus on the threats to various kinds of order, and measures taken to restore lost order, this represents the type of news story that this paper is concerned with. Within the broad category of disorder news, there are two categories of stories of concern to this issue; moral disorder, and social disorder (Barak 1994). Moral disorder stories are those that report violations of laws or mores that do not endanger the social order. Stories in this category would include discussions of prostitution or homosexual marriages (Barak 1994). Social disorder stories are those that report activities that disturb the public peace. This is the area of news which covers the topic of juvenile violent crime. Barak also states that stories of this nature almost always involve some reporting of violence or the threat of violence (Barak 1994). Knowing that stories about social disorder topics almost always include reports of violence begins to show the manner in which juvenile crime is reported by the media. This is just the beginning of the discussion of the media’s relationship with juvenile crime, and specifically school shootings. This paper seeks to explore the relationship between the media and the phenomenon of school shootings, in two distinct areas. The first section of the paper will examine the effect the media has had with regards to attitudes about school shootings. This section will specifically examine the agreement or lack thereof between public opinion regarding school shootings, and actual statistical evidence regarding school shootings. Secondly, the paper will examine whether the media has had an impact on recent policy decisions regarding school shootings. This section will explore policy decisions both in terms of decisions made by school districts, and decisions made by local and national legislators.
It is difficult to express the impact of the media in a concrete manner, because people do not exist in a vacuum devoid of other influences. Due to this, perhaps the best way to measure the impact of media on attitudes toward an issue is to measure congruence between the media and the facts about the issue. That is, this paper will first examine the statistical data concerning school shootings, specifically, and juvenile crime in general. Then, the paper will examine the attitudes of the general public regarding the issues of school shootings, and juvenile crime. If the media is accurately portraying the facts about these issues then there should exist a high level of congruence between attitudes, and fact. If however, there exists a high level of incongruence between attitudes and fact then it can be surmised that the media is expressing an inaccurate portrait of the issues. This examination will also reveal what beliefs the media has created among the public with regard to school shootings, and juvenile crime. These attitudes will lay the foundation for ideas to be discussed later in the paper. The two most prevalent forms of criminal justice statistics are the Uniform Crime Reports, and the National Crime Victimization Survey. These two measures form the basis for most crime statistical analysis. While the UCR and NCVS represent the two most prominent measures of crime there are several other measures ranging from official data to unofficial surveys, and polls. One such poll was conducted in 1994 by the Children’s Defense Fund, it found that four out of every five juvenile murders that year were committed by adults (Repenning et. al. 2001). Another poll, this time conducted by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention states that one-half of 1% of all juveniles were arrested for a violent crime in 1997 (Lewis 2001). Other research conducted by the U.S. Department of Education found that 90% of the schools in America had no incidents of violent crime in 1997 (Repenning et.al. 2001). Another study revealed that between 1995 and 1999 the percentage of students who reported being the victim of a violent crime at school dropped from an already low 10% to 8% (Snell et. al. 2002). The same study also showed that there were 38 homicides of students committed in schools in the 1998-1999 school year. This number may seem somewhat high, but the study went on to state that there were a total of 2407 school age homicide victims during that time period (Snell et. al. 2002). Those numbers equate to 1.3% of all juvenile homicides being committed at school. A separate survey conducted by the Parents’ Resource Institute for Drug Education (Stewart 1998), revealed that 3.8% of school age children reported having carried a gun to school in the 1997-1998 school year (Stewart 1998). That percentage represents an approximate total of 973,000 students having brought guns to school last year (Stewart 1998). While these numbers may seem alarming they represent a 36% drop over the last five years. All of these studies seem to agree that the rate of juvenile violent crime is dropping, and more specifically that schools are not dangerous places, but among the most safe for juveniles. These studies represent half of the available statistical research on juvenile crime, and school shootings. The second, made up of the Uniform Crime Report and other official data, will now be discussed. According to U.C.R. findings, the number of juvenile homicide arrests in 1999 was the lowest since 1984 (Benekos et. al. 2002). In fact a more telling statistic, the juvenile homicide arrest rate, reached its lowest point since the 1960s after falling 68% during the second half of the 1990s (Benekos et. al. 2002). These data indicate that in 1965, 25 children under the age of 13 were arrested for homicides, 31 years later the number had dropped to 16 (Burns & Crawford 1999). Those numbers represent a drop of 36% in the number of juveniles arrested for homicide in the last 30 years. Therefore, the UCR and NCVS appear to indicate that juvenile violence is not increasing but rather decreasing. Further examination of both U.C.R. and N.C.V.S. data revealed that 90% of counties nationwide had not experienced a juvenile murder in 1999 (Benekos et. al. 2002). Data also reveal that school related violent deaths have been steadily decreasing since 1992. In fact, by 1996 there were only 380,000 violent crimes committed in schools nationwide (Beger 2002). While this number may seem high it translates to a figure of 0.7% of all individuals, juvenile and adults who are involved with schools being victims of violent crimes at those schools. Finally, during the 1998-1999 school year it was determined that the chance of being the victim of a violent crime at a school was one in two million (Snell et. al. 2002). After examining both the official statistics gathered by the justice department, along with other official statistics, and additional surveys it is apparent that juvenile crime is decreasing. It is also quite apparent that schools are especially safe places for juveniles, and becoming even safer year by year. However, if these are the trends, and the media is accurately representing them, then an examination of public opinion on the topic of juvenile crime should show similar findings. Public opinion should be that juvenile crime is decreasing, and that schools are especially safe places. The paper now turns to an examination of public opinion on these subjects. Public opinion is generally measured through the use of polls. With respect to crime these polls can take on a variety of forms. Some polls may measure fear of crime, while others measure feelings of safety in a particular area. When all of these polls are added together they provide an accurate picture of public opinion. The first example of public opinion to be examined here is a study conducted by Benekos et. al. in 2002. The study was to determine the beliefs and attitudes of college students toward juvenile justice. The study specifically focused on students pursuing a degree in criminal justice. The first question the study asked was, “Do you believe school violence is getting worse?” In response, 49% of the students answered yes, they do believe school violence is getting worse. Even worse however, is that 45% of the criminal justice majors polled said they believed school violence is getting worse (Benekos et. al. 2002). These findings represent a direct contradiction to the facts about juvenile crime shown above. Most disturbing, is that even the education received by criminal justice majors, which should offset the effects of the media, seems to have little impact. Other evidence of the public’s perception of crime comes from a Wall Street Journal poll conducted in 1999. In that poll 71% of respondents stated that they believed a school shooting was likely in their community (Snell et. al. 2002). This coincides closely with a 1999 poll by USA Today that shows that despite a 40% decrease in violent deaths at school from 1998 to 1999, respondents were 49% more likely to fear violence at school (Snell et. al. 2002). These percentages are very close, although in opposite directions, this represents a problem with the coverage of crime. A Gallup poll conducted in 1998 asked adults to reveal their level of concern about school violence and school shootings. The results showed that 75% of American adults stated they were very seriously concerned about the issue (Burns & Crawford 1999). A more direct example of the misrepresentation of crime can be found in a statistic provided by Klug. It states that between 1990 and 1998 television coverage of murders increased by 473%, during the same time period the actual murder rate dropped by 32% (Klug 2001). This statistic reveals much about the cause for the incongruence between public perception of crime, and actual crime statistics. Research on the issue of media causing fear of crime has shown mixed results. The overall finding of the studies seems to be that some programming is related to fear of crime among some viewers (Snell et. al. 2002). While this finding may seem ambiguous it represents studies that lie on both sides of the issue. It appears that there is at least correlation between the media, and fear of crime, even if a causal relationship cannot be established. However, even if the media does not cause the public to fear crime, it definitely does not accurately present the crime problem. The issue of inaccurate presentation of crime remains a problem even if it does not result in escalated levels of fear of crime among the public. The media’s misrepresentation of the amount and severity of crime damages public opinion even if the fear of crime does not increase. Along these lines Burns and Crawford claim that society’s reaction to school shootings has created a “moral panic.” The authors define a “moral panic” as, “a condition, episode, person or group of persons who emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values, and interests; whose nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media” (Burns & Crawford 1999). The phenomenon of the moral panic is characterized by a strengthening of the social control mechanism this can include tougher laws, and more police interaction. These two characteristics will both be discussed later in the paper, but they do apply to the issue of school violence. This idea of strengthening the social control mechanism in reaction to a perceived threat is the real substance of the moral panic. The strengthening of the social control mechanism as alluded to above is accomplished through the changing of policy and even law by the government (Burns & Crawford 1999). Any time a strengthening of the social control mechanism occurs the result is a loss of citizen’s rights. When such steps are taken in reaction to a legitimate problem the result is a reduction in the problem, and therefore the loss of rights is viewed as an acceptable byproduct. However, when laws and policies are made more restrictive in reaction to a false perception the benefits are minimal, and the loss of citizen’s rights becomes unacceptable. This is the bottom line problem that exists within the phenomenon of a moral panic the government is allowed to place greater restrictions on citizen’s rights with no real justification. The manner in which this has occurred in regard to juvenile violence will be discussed later in this paper. The moral panic also requires a consensus among society that an epidemic exists, in modern society this consensus is achieved through the mass media (Burns & Crawford 1999). As an example following one school shooting in Oregon, The New York Times ran coverage of the incident on the front page for three consecutive days, and television networks delayed normal programming to provide constant coverage of the events (Reynolds 2003). Such comprehensive media coverage leads to vast agreement among public opinion as to the extent of a problem. The effects of this agreement will be discussed later when policy decisions are examined. The preceding section has presented both the facts, and perceived reality of juvenile crime, and specifically school related violent crime in America. This section has revealed a great deal of incongruence between the facts, and the public’s perceived reality. This incongruence seems to be a direct result of misrepresentation of the facts by media. The enormous difference between the increase of crime coverage and the decrease of actual crime is a prime example of the media’s failure to accurately portray crime. This media shortcoming has a wide range of results on the public, some of which have already been discussed in terms of inaccurate attitudes and beliefs about juvenile crime. However, these inaccurate attitudes and beliefs are just the beginning of the real problem the media creates in the juvenile justice system. The end result of widespread agreement among public opinion is a change in public policy. This is true regardless of the validity of the public’s opinion. The paper has already shown that the public views juvenile violent crime as a serious problem on the rise. The paper has also shown that this is in direct opposition to the actual trends of juvenile violent crime, and specifically school shootings. The paper will now turn to a discussion of recent policy decisions regarding juvenile violent crime, which have been made in reaction to such misguided public opinion. The Media and Policy Decisions The first section of this paper presented evidence which suggested that the media has a great deal of influence on public opinion. This influence, caused the public to believe that juvenile crime, and especially school related violent crime was rising. However, statistics on juvenile crime show that it is actually decreasing, and school violence statistics show that schools are among the safest places for juveniles. This section of the paper will examine what effect these media-influenced false beliefs have had on policy decisions. First the section will examine those policy decisions made by legislators, then the decisions made by school administrators, and finally decisions that directly affect the juvenile justice system itself. The media as stated above has, intentionally or not, influenced public opinion. Legislators are in a position where they are controlled by public opinion. Therefore, the influence of the media has an indirect impact on legislative policy decisions. What has this influence reaped in terms of juvenile school safety policy? Between 1994 and 1999 state legislators passed a total of 92 laws dealing with the issue of school safety (Repenning et. al. 2001). Additionally, state legislators passed 76 laws dealing with the prevention and intervention of juvenile delinquency (Repenning et. al. 2001). These laws often called for the implementation of “safe school zones” (Snell et. al. 2002). These “safe school zones” prohibit any weapons being brought within close proximity of the school, with violations resulting in severe punishment (Snell et. al. 2002). The legislative reform does not stop at the state level. Even federal legislators have implemented new policies to deal with the perceived problem of juvenile violence in schools. The chief piece of federal legislation is the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1994. This act required any school that receives federal funds to expel for at least one year, any student found with a weapon on school grounds (Benekos et. al. 2002). The act also included a provision that allowed the Department of Education to withhold funds from any state which did not adopt a policy that was at least as restrictive. This law basically introduced the concept of “zero tolerance policies” (Benekos et. al. 2002). “Zero tolerance policies” include a mandatory sentence for anyone found in violation of the policy regardless of the circumstances (Benekos et. al. 2002). In regard to juvenile crime, the policies generally affect the presence of guns, or drugs in or around schools. While the policies may have had good intentions, they effectively remove discretion from the criminal justice system, which is a very dangerous thing. One example of this comes from Virginia where a 12 year old boy was expelled from school for waving a stapler on a school bus (Benekos et. al. 2002). This action technically violates the laws of that state, but surely the spirit of the law was not violated by this child. While legislators provide the most dramatic example of the impact of the media on policy decisions, other administrators may provide a more detailed example. School administrators, like legislators, function in direct response to public opinion. However, unlike legislators, school administrators function at a first line level when dealing with issues of juvenile school violence. They hold the power to determine what is good or bad for their specific institution, which allows them to institute more specific controls than those available to legislators. For this reason, the paper will now turn to an examination of the media-influenced policy decisions made by school administrators. The issue of media influencing school policy is well represented in a quote by Kenneth Trump, President of the National School Safety and Security Services. Mr. Trump stated, “Educators depending upon information from the media, politicians, and academicians to make school safety decisions often receive skewed and misleading information on school violence” (Repenning et. al. 2001). Mr. Trump’s statement indicates an authoritative point of view on the quality of information received by school administrators, from the media. It is this type of information however, that is most heavily relied upon when initiating school policy. As evidenced in a survey of 800 school in Texas conducted by Snell et. al. The study determined that 84% of the schools had made some change in disciplinary policy in the last five years (Snell et. al. 2002). The study also found that these changes were most likely to have been a result of media coverage of school crimes, as opposed to actual incidents in their schools. In reaction to the information presented by the media, in combination with media-influenced public opinion school administrators have initiated several “safety” practices in recent years. Among them is the use of metal detectors, the use of the aforementioned zero-tolerance policies, and the use of a law enforcement presence within the schools. This section will briefly examine each of these methods of providing safety. The use of metal detectors in public schools has gained a great deal of popularity in recent years. According to Beger, in 2002 a survey of over 700 schools nationwide revealed that 39% of urban school districts used metal detectors (Beger 2002). Additionally, the Snell study conducted in Texas showed that the largest manufacturer of metal detectors in the state owed 25% of its business to school districts (Snell et. al. 2002). The study also found that of the school districts using metal detectors, 96% of them had initiated the practice within the last five years. All of this information reveals the degree to which metal detectors are now a part of a normal urban school operation. The cost for making this adjustment in school safety, is an estimated at $795 million annually, or $19.28 per student (Snell et. al. 2002). Another of the new safety innovation in use is the aforementioned use of “zero tolerance policies”. The purpose of these policies has been discussed above, so this section will focus on their widespread use, and acceptance. Some form of “zero-tolerance policy” is in place in over 80% of the nation’s schools (Snell et. al. 2002). These policies were initially meant to control weapons at schools, but now control a number of activities. Among the activities, policies for weapons are most prevalent, as they are present in 91% of schools. Other policies include drug possession, found in 90% of schools, fights, found in 83%, and sexual assaults, found in 86% (Snell et. al. 2002). This information shows just how pervasive “zero-tolerance policies” are in school districts nationwide. The reason for this pervasive can be found in data from Benekos et. al. Their study of college students found that of those sampled 52% believes that schools should enforce “zero-tolerance policies” to prevent school violence (Benekos et. al. 2002). Additionally, a national survey conducted by the Gallup organization in 2000 found that 87% of respondents favored “zero-tolerance policies” (Benekos et. al. 2002). These survey results reveal the prevailing public opinion, which contributes to school policy. The final safety measure to be examined here is the presence of law enforcement officers in schools. Data from 2000 show that 65% of school districts use some form of security personnel in the school, and 19% of schools had a police officer or other law enforcement representative present full time (Beger 2002). Additionally, there are now over 1,000 schools using drug-sniffing dogs on a regular basis. Nationwide there are over 40 states that use armed police officers to monitor students during school (Repenning et. al. 2001). This represents a major change in the traditional role of schools as relational locations. In fact, according to Repenning the presence of police officers creates a strain between students and their environment. The institution of police officers in school is a relatively recent development according to Snell. His research found that 80% of Texas schools have partnerships with local police departments. Of this 80%, over half have developed the relationship within the last five years (Snell et. al. 2002). This appears to be a direct result of the influence of recent media coverage concerning juvenile school crime, and school shootings. One final area of policy decisions needs to be examined. The last area of pertinent policy changes in the area of juvenile violent crime concerns those changes affecting the juvenile justice system itself. The first juvenile court was established in 1899, in Cook County, Illinois. The goal of this first court was to prevent cruelty to children (Stein et. al. 1997). The juvenile court was effectively established as a means of separating young offenders from adults, and protecting them from the punitive nature of the corrections system. Throughout history the juvenile justice system has been one centered on the ideas of prevention and rehabilitation (Stein et. al. 1997). This has been especially true in the last 30 years as a great movement toward the deinstitutionalization of youth has occurred. During that time period states have turned increasingly to the use of community based alternative sanctions when dealing with youthful offenders (Stein et. al. 1997). However, in reaction to political pressure, caused by public opinion this 100 plus year old system is now being attacked at its very source. Increasingly, there are public cries to try children as adults, and to impose lengthy prison sentences on young offenders (Geraghty & Drizin 1999). In fact, between 1992 and 1997 40 states passed legislation making easier for juveniles to be tried as adults (Geraghty & Drizin 1999). Nationwide the implementation of this new series of legislation has led to the trying as adults of juveniles as young as 13, and 14 years old (Stein et. al. 1997). This movement has occurred in spite of research on the subject that seems to suggest the opposite approach should be taken. Stein cites research findings that those juveniles who are transferred to adult court show much higher recidivism rates than juveniles who are tried in the juvenile system (Stein et. al. 1997). In addition to the lowering of the minimum age at which a child can be tried as an adult, recent legislation has also tinkered with several other long standing components of the juvenile justice system. Among the changes, and proposed changes are moves to allow the long private juvenile justice system to be made public (Stein et. al. 1997). This would allow access to juvenile court proceedings, and would presumably lower the level of confidentiality currently present within the system. Additionally, some states have moved to include juvenile offenses in the determination of sentencing for adult crimes (Stein et. al. 1997). Finally, since 1995 several states have passed legislation which changes the language of juvenile justice statutes from a goal of rehabilitation to one of punishment (Geraghty & Drizin 1999). All of these changes are so drastic in nature that some have begun to speculate if the maintaining of a separate juvenile justice system may soon be a thing of the past. Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware is one such individual, who feels that the pending legislation on the topic, “calls into question whether we are going to continue to have a separate juvenile justice system in this country” (Stein et. al. 1997). While the complete disposal of the separate juvenile justice system does not seem likely to occur there is little doubt that the system will soon look radically different than it has come to be known. The question that remains, is whether this change from rehabilitation to punishment is appropriate, or even necessary. This section of the paper has included a discussion of the various policy decisions influenced by the media. As presented, these decisions can range from new laws enacted by Congress down to school policy decisions made by administrators. This section also reviewed briefly some of the major policy changes school administrators have implemented in recent years, as well as a range of legislative changes that directly affect the juvenile justice system itself. All of these policy changes were made with the goal of decreasing juvenile violent crime in schools. The problem is that they were made in reaction to skewed information, and misguided public opinion. Therefore, these new policies were made to combat a problem that does not exist, at least not at an extreme level. This paper examines the relationship between the media and juvenile crime, specifically school shootings. Through the course of the material presented here, the paper has examined the relationship between public opinion and statistical facts, which reveals a great deal of incongruence. The research suggests that at least part of this incongruence can be attributed to the media. The paper also presented evidence that the media may have played a big role in the creation of a moral panic in the United States regarding juvenile school shootings. The criteria for a moral panic, as discussed above, definitely seem to fit within the media’s coverage of, and public’s reaction to the series of school shootings. In addition, the paper revealed that with regard to all such stories that are issues of social disorder, the media tends to only report happenings that involve either violence or the threat of violence. The second section of the paper examined the wide range of policy decisions that have resulted from the extensive media coverage of crime. This section detailed both the laws governing juvenile school crime, and examples of new school policies designed to combat school violent crime. The section then examined the changing of several policies which have had a direct impact on the juvenile justice system as a whole. The research suggests that the vast majority of these policies have little impact on school crime however, they were shown to be quite costly to the school districts. Additionally, a high cost exists in terms of citizen’s rights with regard to the newly passed legislation aimed at school violence. This loss of rights is in reaction to a problem that has been shown through statistical analyses not to exist. Also, there is an increasing call for reform of a long standing separate juvenile justice system. This call for reform has even gone as far as calling for the total abolition of the separate juvenile system. While such a total abolition seems unlikely, a great impact on the manner in which the current system operates has been achieved. Already the system is losing some of its power as children are now able to be transferred to adult court at a much younger age. Additionally, the system has seen a drastic shift from a focus on rehabilitation of offenders, and prevention of new crimes, to a focus on punishment and incapacitation of offenders regardless of age. Overall the research has revealed an active relationship between the media and juvenile crime, especially with regard to school shootings. One suggestion for future research in this area, is to survey school administrators nation wide to determine what factors influenced their decisions in this area. Such research would need to focus on policy decisions made within the last five years. This would allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the elevated level of media coverage of school shootings in the late 1990s. This research would make it much easier to show a relationship between the media and policy decisions. In conclusion, this paper has presented a wide range of information concerning the interaction between the media and juvenile crime. The idea of a relationship between two entities such as these is a very abstract one, due to this it is difficult to make definitive statements about the relationship. Neither the media, nor juvenile crime exist within a vacuum, therefore, it is difficult to pinpoint the degree of the relationship between the two. However, it is obvious from the research that a relationship exists, and the relationship appears to be a detrimental one. Throughout this paper the amount of influence that the media holds over policy decisions has been emphasized. Due to this influence it is crucial to the future of juvenile justice that a more beneficial relationship be formed between the media and the juvenile justice system. Such a task is a difficult one to achieve due to the first amendment right of freedom of the press. This right does not allow for outside control of media outlets, making it difficult to enforce accuracy of reporting. With this in mind perhaps the best solution to the problem of skewed reporting is to instill a higher level of ethics in the media. This approach would require the industry to police itself, and to institute a viable code of conduct to be followed by all of its members. If such a code were in place, with appropriate sanctions attached, it is quite possible that the media would give a much more accurate portrayal of the juvenile justice system. References Barak, G. (1994). Media, Process, and the Social Construction of Crime. New York, New York: Garland Publishing. Beger, R. (2002). Expansion of police power in public schools and the vanishing rights of Students. Social Justice, 29 (2), 119-131. Benekos, P., Merlo, A., Cook, W., & Bagley, K. (2002). A preliminary study of student Attitudes on juvenile justice policy. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13 (2), 273-299. Burns, R. & Crawford, C. (1999). School shootings, the media, and public fear: Ingredients for a moral panic. Crime Law & Social Change, 32 (2) 147-168. Geraghty, T. & Drizin, S. (1999). Charting a new course for juvenile justice: Listening to outsiders. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 90 (1), 363-390. Klug, E. (2001). Juvenile crimes over reported. Corrections Today, 63 (4), 14. Lewis, R. (2001). Youth Crime and gun violence: Are there any answers? Journal of California Law Enforcement, 35 (2), 16-26. Repenning, K., Powell, H., Doane, A., & Dunkle, H. (2001). Demystifying school violence: A Local, state, and national perspective on the phenomenon of school violence. Journal of Security Administration, 24 (1), 45-64. Reynolds, G., (2003). The World Trade Center Attacks and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Educational Forum, 67 (1), 129-160. Snell, C., Bailey, C., Carona, A., & Mebane, D. (2002). School crime policy changes: The Impact of recent highly-publicized school crimes. American Journal of Criminal Justice: AJCJ, 26 (2), 269-289. Stein, N., Katz, S., Madriz, E., & Shick S. (1997). Losing a generation: probing the myths and realities of youth and violence. Social Justice, 24 (4) 1-7. Stewart, R. (1998). PRIDE Teen Survey. [Electronic version]. www.pride Surette, R. (1998). Media, crime and criminal justice: Images and reality (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA West/Wadsworth. Wallace, L. (2001). Reports from rural Mississippi: A look at school violence. Journal of Security Administration, 24 (2), 15-34. Yüklə 1,2 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||