Capital Punishment and the Media.

It is the job of a journalist to show the public either sanitised propaganda or confrontational statements of truth. The newspapers, radio stations and television networks employing them, however, dictate just what their journalists report about. Said organisations often have preferences or links with particular political parties. Presenting “safe” stories is not a journalist’s intention, but rather the intention of newspaper editors and radio and television news producers, whose greatest concern is that of selling newspapers and winning ratings – it’s a popularity contest. But it takes nothing more than their devotion to their work and concern for the awareness of their society for a journalist to take a stand and say, “Hang on, there is another more important side to this story which I must expose.”

For as long as it has been in existence, the death penalty has been a heated topic of much taboo. When it is raised in the media, it is often sanitised or purely just implied, with the criminals in question portrayed as heartless sadists instead of having their motives and reasoning highlighted. But what we ourselves think of the death penalty is irrelevant. What is relevant is why the media never seems to have a biased opinion towards it, and why some within the media are in support of it and some against.

Many reports of cases involving the death penalty have a religious historical angle. Bishop Christopher Saunders, Chairman of the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, states, “The death penalty is an offence against the dignity and sanctity of all human life which must be respected, even in those who have done great evil. Nothing is gained through capital punishment. Indeed, use of the death penalty undermines respect for life and contributes to a culture of revenge. Such thoughts of revenge exist in contradistinction to our belief in life as a gift from God which is celebrated so vividly at this time of Christmas.” (Australia’s Leaders Should Renounce Death Penalty) Here, Bishop Saunders is making a pledge to the media to show the lighter sides of death row prisoners at a time of year which should remain synonymous with warmth and love, without implying that he thinks they have not sinned – the media tells us these convicts have sinned and shoves it down our throats.

The death penalty is clearly something of different importance for many different people. Some of us who, to begin with, are in full-fledged opposition to it may experience something which leads us to change our minds; others, vice versa. Reporters for the Sydney Morning Herald Margo Kingston and Antony Loewenstein showed then-Prime Minister John Howard as staunch opposition to capital punishment originally. When Indonesian terrorist Amrozi, one of the perpetrators of the 2002 Bali bombings, was sentenced to death, however, Loewenstein showed Prime Minister Howard as quote, “As usual, John Howard excels at having it both ways. He’s against the death penalty, but approves of it at the same time. I can’t stand the way he talks about “normal Australian” response to grief, as if there is such a thing. I think the talk of Australian values and un-Australian behaviour the most moronic expressions flung about. Next there’ll be an Australian way for buttering your toast!” (Kingston, Loewenstein, 2003).
Support for the death penalty in 2001 was surprisingly low in what would seem the most unlikely place – the United States. On June 11 that year one of the most infamous episodes in America’s recent history came to an end with the execution of 1995 Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, however McVeigh’s execution actually found many Americans in a state of reconsideration for state killing. Of course, we all know what would tragically occur in New York City and Washington D.C. exactly two months after the day of McVeigh’s execution – the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. All these events encourage capital punishment supporters in their apparent message that execution is the only option for people who commit acts of mass murder. Interestingly, however, even shortly after the execution of Timothy McVeigh and the events of September 11, 2001, support in the U.S. for capital punishment was at a rate of 63, the lowest since the 1950s (Sarat 2001). This shows that despite the executions of mass murderers or acts of extreme terrorism, many still see capital punishment as a cruel and deliberate spilling of blood, and how maybe gives what the people in question might want – to be put out of their misery.

Of course, in much of the rest of the world, the U.S. is viewed, perhaps misguidedly, as a violent country, so what has happened for the majority of its population to turn against the death penalty? The main reason, according to many academics, is the introduction of DNA tests in cases since the 1990s – these are conducted to justifiably prove whether the person in question is guilty or innocent. There is also an underlying concern for the accidental execution of innocent people, and political disputes trying to sway ordinary citizens between two views (Sangillo 2007).

There is also to consider the power-plays between conservatism and liberalism. The media dehumanizes and marginalizes criminals, making an atmosphere that allows the criminal justice system to treat convicted felons harshly. This is especially the case for members of minority groups based on race and/or ethnicity. The public’s opinion on crime comes from several sources besides personal experience; fear of crime is driven by media treatments of crime rather than by statistics. The politicisation of crime has eliminated the definitions of criminals chiefly to African-American men and the poor, and death-row convicts to heartless monsters (Munro 1999).

One of the most widespread news stories of 2006 was the conviction and execution of fallen Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. However, what was so debated, given how disliked Hussein was, was whether his execution was justified. Even Foreign Minister Alexander Downer had these words to say: “The execution of Saddam Hussein is a significant moment in Iraq’s history. He has been brought to justice, following a process of fair trial and appeal, something he denied to countless thousands of victims of his regime. Saddam and two of his former officials were found guilty and sentenced to death by the Iraqi Higher Tribunal on 5 November of crimes against humanity for the orchestration of the execution of 148 men and boys in the village of Dujail nearly 25 years ago. It is a credit to the people of Iraq that he was provided a fair trial, which lasted over a year, for this, and the gruesome other crimes for which he and his regime were responsible. No matter what one might think about the death penalty, and the Government of Iraq is aware of the Australian Government’s position on capital punishment, we must also respect the right of sovereign states to pass judgment relating to crimes committed against their people, within their jurisdictions.” (Downer, 2006) Members of Civil Liberties Australia both agreed and disagreed with Downer’s statement, with CLA Director Vic Adams claiming, “The death penalty overturns that most basic of all human rights - the right to life. This does not change if the person involved is Saddam Hussein or Scott Rush, one of Australia’s forgotten “Bali 9” on death row. In the case of Saddam, the state-sponsored killing can only be for revenge as it is hardly a deterrent. Countries which continue to practise the death penalty have no right to be called civilised. Where are Australia’s politicians protesting such barbarity?” (Adams 2006)

Everyone has their own views on the state’s shedding of blood, and everyone is entitled to his or her views on it. The death penalty is most definitely a very topical and touchy issue; however, whether we like it or not, it is one that will not go away. But individual views on it are irrelevant here. What is relevant is why and how the media talk down to us by, at the least, watering down capital punishment, or at the most, glorifying it. Why does the media think we are all like impressionable children? Why do the media feel that we should be inclined to see things from their point of view? Of course, capital punishment is indeed a very sensitive topic, but underneath all the unsentimental bloodshed it involves, it is a human rights issue. Those are the stories that matter the most.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

· Author/s not stated, 19/12/2003, Australia’s Leaders Should Renounce Death Penalty, http://www.socialjustice.catholic.org.au/CONTENT/media_releases/2003_12_19_1072095434.html
· Kingston, M. and Loewenstein, A. 2003, Capital punishment: honest John goes all postmodern, Sydney Morning Herald, 18/18/03, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/18/1061059762662.html
· Sarat, A. 2001, When the state kills: capital punishment and the American condition, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YD0W6BYp5vAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=capital+punishment+and+the+media&ots=XKdomne2fd&sig=uBp8la8-oJGOfhNQUzHz7QpH_yo#PPP1,M1
· Sangillo, G. 2007, Death and innocence, National Journal magazine, Vol. 39, Iss. 17, find through ProQuest
· Munro, V.T. 1999, Images of crime and criminals: How media creations drive public opinion and policy, University of Minnesota
· Downer, A. 2006, Execution of Saddam Hussein, 30 December 2006, http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2006/fa145_06.html
· McKenzie, M.H., Adams, V., Klugman, K. et al, Civil Liberties Australia – What you say 2006, Civil Liberties Australia, http://www.claact.org.au/pages/yoursay.php