In today’s society the media has an incredible power and influence on individuals’ world views. Sources of public knowledge on crime can be divided into two groups: direct (from personal experience) and indirect knowledge (from media). The majority of the public’s understanding of crime and the criminal justice system is derived from the media’s representation (Dowler, 2003). To determine the ways crime is misrepresented in the media it is important to examine how the various stages (production, content and consumption by the public) contribute.
Reasons as to why media is produced plays an important role in how the nature of crime is misrepresented. In Australia only a small number of large corporations own the majority of media establishments creating fierce competition for audiences which in turn bring in revenue. However, in order to reach a large audience the content must be of interest which is more often than not a misrepresentation of current issues, particularly crime (Wood, 2015). A major element which makes a story newsworthy is if the crime is exceptionally rare and unusual (Katz, 1987). Other factors which increase the likelihood of a crime story being featured are if an individual or organisation is an important person or well known, it affects a large group of people, supports current events, or is geographically or emotionally close to the audience (Wood, 2015). Therefore, crimes which are most prevalent in society usually are not reported in the news giving the impression to audiences that unusual crimes are occurring more than they actually do.
The content of the media is determined by those producing it therefore they are able to determine what and which point of view will be presented to the audience. This is done through what sociologists call framing. ‘Frames’ are unconscious narratives which are made up of facts as well as beliefs and values (Bessant & Watts, 2017). Theodore Sasson (1995) developed five basic frames presented in the media which aim to explain why people commit crimes: the faulty system frame (the justice system is failing to control the amount of crime), the blocked opportunities frame (lack of opportunities and marginalisation constrict full participation in society), the social breakdown (breakdown of familial institution, social values, morality causing disruption of order and unity within society), the racist system frame (ethnic and racial minority groups are unfairly caught and punished) and the violent media frame (violent media exposure causing people to commit crimes). These media frames contribute to the misperception of crime as they consciously or unconsciously present a certain point of view which in turn is consumed and internalised by the audience.
From newspapers, the nightly news and even social media, individuals are constantly surrounded by the discussion of crime. For most people the media is the only source of information about crime so the community perception of crime and the actual evidence can be quite divergent. Crimes such as homicide are often portrayed in the media as increasing or prominent in society however these crimes are extremely rare and only make up 0.05% of offences (Makkai & Prenzler, 2015). The effect of the misrepresentation can also be seen in the results of surveys on the fear of crime in society. Study has shown that people feared victimisation more by strangers than by people they know however statistics reveal that people are less likely to be victimised by someone they do not know than someone known to them. (Makkai & Prenzler, 2015). The effect of violent media on fear of society was labelled as a ‘cultivation effect’ by Gerbner and colleagues who believed that attitudes and beliefs are more likely to be affected as opposed to specific behviours (Wood, 2015). Fear and anxiety among citizens about being victimised is based on false information portrayed by the media and can also leads to the belief that the criminal justice system is ineffective.
The public is constantly being bombarded with crime stories through various means of media, it is impossible to escape the misrepresentations of the nature of crime. It is an unrealistic expectation for media producers to change the content as although they provide information to audiences about current events their underlying purpose is to generate income. Therefore, to reduce the misconceptions of crime in society it is important that the public is aware of the media manipulation and is also able to critically evaluate the accuracy of information of victimisation, offenders, crime and the criminal justice system.
Is the risk of being a victim of violent crime evenly distributed throughout society?
Violent crimes in society vary greatly from homicide, assault, kidnapping and stalking. Crimes against a person can be defined as “negligent, intentional or reckless acts which result in harm (physical injury/violation, or non-physical harm) against a distinct person or persons as opposed to the general public” (Cartwright, 2015). Every individual in society is not equally at risk of being victim of violent crime. Although numerous factors contribute to the likelihood of victimisation a person’s gender, age, race and location are the some of the greatest determinants.
Gender is a major factor which affects a person’s likelihood of being a victim of violent crimes and also who the offender is. Statistics have shown that apart from sexual assault males are more likely to be a victim of violent crime (Hayes & Prenzler, 2015). It was also found that males are more likely to be assaulted by a stranger while females are more likely to be assaulted by a family member or someone they know. Concerningly, the rate of female victims of sexual ssault was considerably higher than male victims in every age category (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2014). This data shows that gender differentiates the increased risk of being a victim for certain crimes and also the likely perpetrator.
Although possibly only due to participation in certain activities, age can be a factor which contributes to the risk of being victimised. In 2013 the youngest (0-9 years) and oldest (65 years and over) age groups had the lowest reported rate of violent crime victimisation (Australian Institute of Criminology). It has been found that older age groups may be less at risk of victimisation due to a lower participation of recreational activities late at night and very early in the morning as opposed to the 15-24 year old age group (Carcach, Graycar, & Muscat, 2001; Cartwright, 2015). As younger age groups are at a higher risk of being a victim of violent crimes it is possible to make the presumption that the risks generally decrease with age.
Another factor which can impact the risk of victimisation is race. In Australian society, Indigenous people have a much greater victimisation rate than non-Indigenous people. In South Australia the rate of physical assault for Indigenous people as 6.2 times the rate of non-Indigenous people while for sexual assault it was 3.5 times the rate. During 2014 and 2015 the rate for non-fatal family violence assaults were 32 times the rate for non-Indigenous females and 23 times the rate for non-Indigenous males (Productivity Commission, 2016). Therefore, if an individual is from an Indigenous Australian the risk of being a victim of violent crime is considerably higher than an individual from a non-Indigenous Australian background.
Location is another key variable related to violent crimes and often determines the type of crime which occurs. In 2013 the most common place for assault was in a residential location, where more than half (52%) of people assaulted were victimised followed by 30% of offenses occurring in community locations (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2014). Through ‘crime mapping’ it is possible to determine where certain crimes are frequently occurring. This process has revealed that assaults often occur near public transportation services such as train stations and railway lines (Hayes &Prenzler, 2015). Violent crime offenses frequently cluster in certain places making the distribution of crime vary across locations.
In society each individual is not equally at risk of being victimised of violent crimes. Factors which greatly influence victimisation risks are gender, age and location. Understanding who in society is most likely to be victimised by particular crimes allows criminal justice system agencies to provide extra information and support to those who are most at risk. If individuals at risk understand how and where to report to if they are victimised it could increase the accuracy of administrative data which is often skewed due to the statistics being based solely on reported crime and not actual crime numbers. Information regarding locations in which crime occurs frequently could also help the police in deploying necessary resources to various places to reduce crime rates. The collation of various data shows that not all individuals are at equal risk of being victimised of violent crimes and is a necessary understanding for the development of the criminal justice system.