The Influence the Media Has on Society’s Perception of Serious Offenders

Introduction

Dowler posits that the mass media plays a pivotal role in constructing the public’s perception of criminality and the criminal justice system. In her thesis of media and crime, Jewkes references a constant debate between academics and lay people regarding the influence of mass media and to what extent it causes anti-social, deviant or criminal behaviour. Jewkes also references the unique relationship between media and crime, noting that many television dramas utilize different aspects of the criminal justice system to boost ratings. This suggests that a substantial number of individuals in western societies are consuming a version of reality that is likely to be distorted by the media for viewership. Furthermore, studies by Gebotys, Roberts and DasGupta suggest that there is a discrepancy in objective reporting between different mediums of media, with television media being more selective with its crime coverage, reporting more serious and unusual crimes. The same study also cited a Canadian national survey indicating more than half their population relied on television as their main source of information. This suggests a high reliance on televised information, especially with the way television and technology have advanced in the years since this study was conducted. Research investigating the media’s unique relationship with crime concluded three assumptions. First, as most individuals do not directly experience serious crime personally, their thoughts and feelings regarding crime are derived. Second, mass media is widely available for everyone to consume, and lastly, a substantial portion of contemporary North American media contains crime-related news and entertainment content. This paper will discuss how has the media influenced the public’s perception of serious crimes.

Criminogenic Effect

Surette defines criminogenic media as “media content that is hypothesized as a direct cause of crime”. As it appears, criminogenic media is not a recent phenomenon, since as early as 1908, there were concerns that the media was “creating an atmosphere of tolerance for criminality and causing juvenile delinquency”. In the years following, it is still of public opinion that there is a causal relationship between media in crime and violence in society, and the relationship between televised violence and the resulting crime rates has also been a constant topic of interest and debate. Jewkes posits that society has been “increasingly characterized by crime – especially violent crime – since the advent of the film and television, resulting in a persistent mythology that the two phenomena – media and violent crime – are naturally linked”. Furthermore, Jewkes also notes that it is often assumed that society has become more violent since the inception of the modern media industry. However, Surette reveals that most research has concluded that while the media contributes significantly to the phenomenon of social aggression, there are also other social factors that contribute to subsequent violent and/or aggressive behaviour. In addition, Surette also notes that aggression does not equate to violent and/or criminal behaviour, since aggressiveness could be achieved without breaking the law. Furthermore, scholars in the United Kingdom have resisted from asserting a direct, causal link between media images and deviant behaviour due to the interpretative nature of mass media. Therefore, Surette posits that the next relevant step in the media and crime relationship discussion is the notion of copycat crime.

The term “the copycat effect” was said to be first coined in 1916 after Jack the Ripper’s murders were mimicked. Helfgott defines copycat crime as a crime that is inspired by another crime. Expanded definitions by Coleman posit the copycat effect to be a tendency of a sensationalized publication about violent murders or suicides to result in more of the same through imitation and Surette indicates that the crime “must be inspired by an earlier, media-publicized or generator crime – that is, there must be a pair of crimes linked by the media”. Surette further adds that, for the copycat crime to qualify as such, the perpetrator must be exposed to detailed media content of the original crime, and that a “major element” from the original crime must have been incorporated into the subsequent one. However, Surette observes that these limitations in indicators are problematic when it comes to identifying true copycat crime as two independent crimes with similar elements could be linked as a copycat crime and allow for real copycat crimes to go unrecognized. Despite these limitations, the notion of the copycat crime existed even before the idea of criminogenic media, since one of the first examples of media specifically created to generate crime was recorded in 1885 when Johann Most published his book Revolutionary War Science, a how-to manual for terrorism which was publicly thought to have resulted in the Chicago Haymarket Square bombing. More recently, in the 1970s, the copycat phenomenon studied several cases of copycat suicides that followed the publication of The Sorrows of Young Werther by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, so much so that the book was banned in Germany, Denmark, and Italy. Despite being commonly used in popular culture and academic research, there is little empirical evidence to suggest the true extent and nature of copycat crimes, which has led to growing numbers of researchers relying on anecdotal evidence.

One example often cited for copycat killings is the series of murders allegedly inspired by Jack the Ripper in 2008. The case follows Derek Brown, who was found guilty of murdering two women in their 20s. His choice of soft-target victims (sex worker and immigrant) as well as where he picked them up (Whitechapel) were both reminiscent of Jack the Ripper which led the police to believe that he was not only inspired by the former serial killer, but Brown also expressed a desire to be compared to him. Subsequent investigations revealed that Brown had a prior conviction for rape in 1989, was a heavy drinker, and had an avid appetite for sex with prostitutes. These social indicators suggest Brown was at high risk for future criminal behaviour and could possibly indicate a deeper psychological or mental disorder.

Another example cited by Helfgott with regards to copycat violent behaviour mentions a murder case that follows an 18-year-old Devin Moore, who was arrested for suspected auto theft. Moore had no prior criminal history, was cooperative during arrest and was brought into the station. However, “once inside the station and booked, he grabbed a .40-calibre Glock automatic from a police officer”, and shot two officers and an emergency dispatcher. After the murder, he drove off in a police cruiser and was captured shortly. During his interrogation, Moore revealed that he played Grand Theft Auto (GTA) – Vice City for hours prior to the murders. Leung reported that two of the victim’s families filed a suit that claimed the murders committed by Moore imitated a scenario in GTA, where he played as a street thug trying to take over the city. Furthermore, during the trial, attorney Jack Thompson, argued that Moore was trained to do what he did and that GTA was essentially a murder simulator. However, Walsh argued that a child who was at high risk for aggressive behaviour tends to be more susceptible to the effects of playing violent video games, and Leung reported that Moore was in this high-risk group due to his difficult and abusive childhood.

The two examples cited for copycat behaviour suggest that the media may not have a complete influence on criminogenic effects, with further evidence and research suggesting that other socially influenced factors play an equally important role when it comes to estimating an individual’s risk level for criminal behaviour. As such, there is no conclusive evidence to support that the media has criminogenic effects and this conclusion may have resulted from several factors, including but not limited to an individual’s engagement with televised material, as well as declarations by experts or authoritative figures.

Social Control Effect

Lambert et al. argue that in a society, crime is usually controlled in two methods – formal and informal social control. Lambert et al. further define formal social control as referring to legal and official control methods, such as the law and government organisations. Informal control then refers to the control that is reinforced by unofficial groups or individuals based on their moral values which is typically taught by socialization. Gerbner and Gross assert that television mainly serves a cultural purpose, to “spread and stabilize social patterns” and acts as a medium to socialize “most people into standardized roles and behaviours”. This suggests that television viewing could be utilized as a tool for informal social control. However, the concept of utilizing mass media as means for a social control tool is also not new, as Erikson applied Durkheim’s functionalist theory into the role of mass media in modern society, suggesting the “continued fascination of the mass media with crime and deviant behaviour may serve to diffuse information about moral boundaries in the same way public punishment once did”. Gerbner’s cultivation theory suggests that such long-term exposure to media content can cultivate viewers’ perception of reality. An argument presented by Gerbner argues that the major consequences of high television consumption since infancy cultivate into what he calls a “mean world syndrome”, further asserting that television “programming reinforces the worst fears and apprehension and paranoia of people” and positing a direct relationship between media and public perception. Results from the 1976 study indicated a tendency of heavy television viewers to overestimate their chances of falling victim to crime and being less trusting of others. Thus, if an individual has internalized the mean world syndrome as a result of an informal social control tool (i.e. the media), they are more likely to support formal social control organisations who take a tough-on-crime approach. However, Gerbner’s study of this “mean world syndrome” has been highly critiqued and reviewed; Wober conducted a similar study for British television viewers and was unable to replicate a similar result of paranoia. Doob and MacDonald revealed that while they are able to replicate the general results of increased fear of their environment by heavy television viewers, they were unable to clearly establish that television viewing was directly responsible for people’s fear of being victims of crime. Studies by Sacco also concluded that Gerbner’s claim of a direct, causal relationship between the mass media and public perception is “simplistic and inconsistent with the available evidence”. Despite the critics, the cultivation theory is still commonly cited in media-related scholarship to understand how society may internalize what they see on the screen as reality.

There has also been empirical evidence to argue that serious and violent crimes are usually inaccurately represented in the media. A Wisconsin study by McBride examining television and newspaper coverage of homicide revealed that in comparison of homicides, more serious crimes were reported, indicating serious crimes to be measured by a number of victims, as well as prosecution charges. McBride also emphasized the importance of the suspect and victim gender, noting that female victims were overrepresented. Crimes that deviated from cultural norms were also more likely to receive coverage, such as gang involvement and pregnant victims. However, the study revealed that statistical rarity did not equate to greater coverage. These findings suggest that the Wisconsin media tend to over emphasize on factors that are important to the Wisconsin community, which shapes the public debate of penal populism. An additional study by Waters, Bond and Eriksson examined the accuracy of homicide representation in Australian print media and revealed that homicides involving female victims were more likely to be represented in the media as compared to their male counterparts, while statistically it is shown that females are less likely to be victims of homicide. Furthermore, gunshot deaths were also found to be overrepresented. Both instances support a rarity framework mentioned by Waters, Bond and Eriksson, which suggests if an incident is uncommon, it is more likely to be considered newsworthy. This study concludes that Australian print media was not accurate in representing homicide. Such evidence clearly shows that the media produces inaccurate and distorted information that the public receives, especially in terms of serious crimes. Furthermore, research has shown that the majority of the public usually looks to the media as a source for policing information. Thus, it is of great significance that the media presents crime in an accurate and serious manner to ensure that the public receives correct information. By allowing the public to realize the exact severity of crimes in their neighbourhood, it reduces the amount of community-perpetuated distortion and moral panics.

Cohen notes that the type of distortion the media involves their reporting usually falls into the exaggeration category. Cohen further illustrates with the Mods and Rockers phenomenon of the 1960s, indicating that journalists tend to use “sensational headlines, melodramatic vocabulary, and the deliberate heightening of those elements” and other techniques to spread mass hysteria. Such mass hysteria or similarly exaggerated reactions are a common characteristic of what Cohen defines as moral panic. He further argues that the mass media tend to stereotype certain types of individuals and their behaviour, emphasizing that these stereotypical constructions typically contained distortion and exaggeration, which leads to what he terms as folk devils. Additionally, Cohen proposes that a consequence of media distortion and exaggeration is the symbolization of certain words and labels which allows the images portrayed by the media to become “sharper than reality”. This consequence is further amplified, considering the media tend to construct meaning instead of accurately reflecting reality. Schultz further addresses this consequence, noting the “impressions we make from the images that surround us inevitably influence social attitudes and public policy”. The demonization of serious crime offenders is often a result of this deadly combination, such as murderers, sex offenders and paedophiles.

A common example used to demonstrate the moral panic due to media coverage is the murder of James Bulger in 1993. Bulger was a 2-year-old toddler when he was abducted in a Liverpool shopping mall by two 10-year-old boys, led away to be tortured and subsequently murdered before being left on a railway track where his mutilated body was eventually found two days later. It was precisely due to the horrific and rare nature of this case that media coverage blew up, as no one expected the murderers to be as young as 10. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the two 10-year-old boys who killed James Bulger, were demonized by the media and the public, causing the boys to live under assumed identities since their release. The public clearly exhibited their frustration and rage, pressuring the judiciary and government to introduce more punitive measures. Hill reported that Judge Morland was pressured by the public to release the names of those who had committed this heinous act, thus revoking the boys’ right to anonymity, despite it usually being granted when children are involved in criminal trials. This case also set the standard for the age of criminal responsibility in the United Kingdom, which presently still remains at 10. On the day of the trial, outside the Sefton courthouse, the public cried punitive punishment for the boys, which created a symbolic “trial by press”. Former Prime Minister John Major was also pressured into taking a tougher stance on juvenile offending, which included introducing more punitive punishments. Major continued to look to the Bulger case for discouraging juvenile delinquency, and so did the public. News reports regarding child criminals following Bulger further perpetuated this myth, when the truth could not be any further since UK statistics do not suggest that serious offences committed by children had increased in the 1990s as compared to previous records. Gerbner and Gross also add that such “ritualized displays of any violence (such as in crime and disaster news, as well as in mass-produced drama) may cultivate exaggerated assumptions about the extent of threat and danger in the world and lead to demand for protection”. Gerbner and Gross further indicate a likely sense of “heightened risk and insecurity” in these individuals. Furthermore, Schattenberg posits the increased emphasis of “swift and certain apprehension of offenders” by the mass media may lead to increased expectations by the public towards the criminal justice system in future crimes.

The James Bulger case exemplified the power the media possesses, as they were able to create an environment of fear and allowed opportunities for constant reminders that the new generation of children was no longer as innocent as those in the past. The post-James Bulger actions taken by the British government at that time suggest a likelihood of governing bodies utilizing this demand for protection and increased public pressure to introduce punitive measures to curb the moral panic. Schultz further supports this argument with the example of child sexual abusers, in which she notes that the media-constructed moral panic of child sexual abusers now takes precedence over the actual reality when it comes to combating the crime effectively. This suggests that moral panics can be considered a source for informal social control as it takes into account a community’s socialization of moral values. Furthermore, since research has essentially concluded that long-term television viewing has a significant impact on how the society views reality; it is in the governing bodies' interest to ensure that televised material maintains the portrayal of a highly efficient criminal justice system as well as crimes and criminals to be extremely dangerous. This ensures that the public has a conservative outlook of crime which allows policing practices to be more punitive. Furthermore, it also creates a society where the public becomes extremely trusting of the criminal justice system.

Conclusion

In considering the influence the media has on society’s perception of serious offenders, there has been extensive literature and research conducted to reveal two schools of thought: criminogenic and social control. The criminogenic perspective, favoured by conservatives, argues a subversive approach to crime and posits the media to be a significant cause in offending. However, by using examples of copycat crimes, it was observed while the media played a significant role in informing and educating the future offender about the nature of the crime, other sociological problems and factors such as childhood abuse, reliance on alcohol and drugs should also be taken into account. In both examples, it was found that both offenders had a history of social problems. Thus, there is inconclusive evidence to show that the mass media is fully criminogenic and that other social problems should also be considered by the media when reporting such crimes. The social control perspective takes a functionalist approach, in which mass media functions as a social control tool in setting “moral boundaries” for modern society. Other literature reveals a similar conclusion, noting the use of television as a socialization tool for informal social control. The research examined revealed that the media tends to distort, exaggerate and relay inaccurate information to the public, especially in terms of serious crimes. The exaggeration, distortion and inaccuracy of information usually lead to a media-led moral panic, especially if it involves culturally deviating elements. In reviewing the most common example when researching moral panics, the James Bulger murder in 1993 concluded that the media exerts a certain power over society. This power allows the media to construct a distorted reality which the public consumes and builds the foundation for public perception of serious crimes and criminals. However, it is also likely that criminogenic material is used to generate media content to create a more conservative public; this, in turn, allows the government to introduce more punitive policies which reinforce the social order of society. Thus, it is more likely that the media influences our perceptions through a social control lens, lending their power of informal control to formal organisations such as the government.

References:

1. Austin, H. (2017). James Bulger: 25 years on from the murder that shook Britain. [online] The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/james-bulger-murder-25-year-anniversary-killing-shook-britain-a8108451.html [Accessed 30 Dec. 2018].
2. Adetunji, J. (2008). Ripper copycat is found guilty of murder. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/oct/06/ukcrime [Accessed 28 Dec. 2018].
3. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon & Kee.
4. Coleman, L. (2004). The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow’s Headlines. New York: Pocket Books.
5. Davies, M. (2013). Moral Panics and the Young: The James Bulger Murder, 1993. In: C. Krinsky, ed., The Ashgate Research Companion to Moral Panics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.233 - 247.
6. Doob, A. and Macdonald, G. (1979). Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(2), pp.170-179.
7. Dowler, K. (2003). Media consumption and public attitudes toward crime and justice: the relationship between fear of crime, punitive attitudes, and perceived police effectiveness. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, [online] 10(2), pp.109-126. Available at: https://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol10is2/dowler.html [Accessed 19 Dec. 2018].
8. Gebotys, R., Roberts, J. and DasGupta, B. (1988). News Media Use and Public Perceptions of Crime Seriousness. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 30(3).
9. Gerbner, G. and Gross, L. (1976). Living with Television: The Violence Profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), pp.172-199.
10. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M. and Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process. In: D. Zillmann and J. Bryant, ed., Perspectives on Media Effects. Routledge, pp.17 - 40.
11. Gerbner, G. (1994). Reclaiming Our Cultural Mythology Television's global marketing strategy creates a damaging and alienated window on the world. In Context: The Ecology of Justice, [online] 38. Available at: https://www.context.org/iclib/ic38/gerbner/ [Accessed 28 Dec. 2018].
12. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N. and Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with Television: Cultivation Process. In: J. Bryant and D. Zillmann, ed., Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., pp.43 - 68.
13. Greer, C. and Reiner, R. (2012). Mediated Mayhem: Media, Crime and Criminal Justice. In: M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 5th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14. Hill, A. (2013). James Bulger killing: 20 years on. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/11/james-bulger-20-years-on [Accessed 30 Dec. 2018].
15. Helfgott, J. (2015). Criminal behaviour and the copycat effect: Literature review and theoretical framework for empirical investigation. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 22, pp.46-64.
16. Hetsroni, A. (2007). Four Decades of Violent Content on Prime-Time Network Programming: A Longitudinal Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Communication, 57(4), pp.759-784.
17. Jewkes, Y. (2004). Media and crime. London: SAGE.
18. Jones-Todd, C. (2017).  A time to kill: Great British serial killers. [online] Significancemagazine.com. Available at: https://www.significancemagazine.com/culture/577-a-time-to-kill-great-british-serial-killers [Accessed 28 Dec. 2018].
19. Lambert, E., Jaishankar, K., Jiang, S., Pasupuleti, S. and Bhimarasetty, J. (2011). Correlates of Formal and Informal Social Control on Crime Prevention: An Exploratory Study among University Students, Andhra Pradesh, India. Asian Journal of Criminology, 7(3), pp.239-250.
20. Morrison, B. (2003). Life after James. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/feb/06/bulger.ukcrime [Accessed 30 Dec. 2018].
21. Sacco, V. (1982). The Effects of Mass Media on Perceptions of Crime: A Reanalysis of the Issues. The Pacific Sociological Review, 25(4), pp.475-493.
22. Schattenberg, G. (1981). Social Control Functions of Mass Media Depictions of Crime. Sociological Inquiry, 51(1), pp.71-77.
23. Schultz, P. (2008). Naming, Blaming, and Framing: Moral Panic over Child Molesters and its Implication for Public Policy. In: C. Krinsky, ed., Moral Panics over Contemporary Children and Youth. Surrey, England: Ashgate, pp.95 - 110.
24. Sharratt, T. (1993). James Bulger 'battered with bricks'. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1993/nov/02/bulger.tomsharratt [Accessed 26 Dec. 2018].
25. Surette, R. (1998). Media, crime, and criminal justice. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
26. Surette, R. (2012). Cause or Catalyst: The Interaction of Real World and Media Crime Models. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), pp.392-409.
27. Walsh, D. (2001). Video Game Violence and Public Policy. [online] Chicago, IL: Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago. Available at:
28. https://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/sites/culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/files/Walsh.pdf [Accessed 27 Dec. 2018].
29. Waters, E., Bond, C. and Eriksson, L. (2017). Examining the Accuracy of Print Media Representations of Homicide in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 29(2), pp.137-153.
30. Wober, J. (1978). Televised Violence and Paranoid Perception: The View From Great Britain. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(3), p.315.