Jessica Wade
Mr. Million
English 103
15 April 2008
Title
In this day and age it seems like television is becoming more and more realistic. Each day there is another show or movie chronicling the life of a celebrity scandal, criminal, or a top news headline. There is a new fascination with criminal investigations, documentaries about crime, and crime fiction. With the new interest of making real-life unlawful activity into entertainment it is easy to make the connection that these types of television shows could have a detrimental effect on crime: increasing the amount of copycat crimes, giving ideas to potential criminals, and affecting the minds of jurors. For these reasons, some may feel that investigative and fictional television series’ along with documentaries about unlawful behavior should be censored. Fictional investigative programs are used solely for entertainment and could be censored. Even though there are shows that don’t have a positive influence on the decrease in crime, there are other shows that are better at increasing awareness about different types of crime and criminals and should not be censored.
Forms of investigative dramas and documentaries such as, Cold Case Files, American Justice, America’s Most Wanted, The First 48, and Forensic Files, Dateline, 20/20 could be seen as informative and therefore beneficial to the viewer. Since these programs can be useful to the viewer they should not be censored. America’s Most Wanted, a program that is devoted to airing the stories of criminals and missing persons in hopes that their broadcasts will help solve the cases. The program airs reenactments of crimes, descriptions of criminals, and their possible whereabouts. The consistent airings of America’s Most Wanted have assisted in 997 captures of fugitives. The capture of almost 1000 criminals defends the fact that this program and programs similar to this are valuable. One of the most infamous cases that was solved with the help of America’s Most Wanted was the case of John List. List was active in church, had a well paying job, a large family, and lived in an 18 room mansion in Westfield, New Jersey. He was an outwardly happy person, but on the inside this was far from the truth. After losing his job and not being able to pay his bills List devised a plan that he thought would solve his problems. On November 9, 1971 John List systematically murdered five members of his family including his mother, wife, and three teenage children. After cleaning up the crime scene and writing a gruesome confession List went on the run and eluded the police for the next 18 years. Over this 18 year span, his whereabouts still unknown, List assumed a new identity. It wasn’t until May 21, 1989 when America’s Most Wanted stepped in and aired a segment about the fugitive that capturing him became a reality. After airing his segment more than 200 tips came in about the location of John List. In less than two weeks List had been captured. He was sentenced to five consecutive life sentences (amw.com). A capture like this provides evidence that this type of television is a necessary evil and shouldn’t be censored.
Another reason that makes television about crime a necessary evil is the fact that it is entertaining. Fictional series about unlawful behavior such as, CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: New York, Law and Order, Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, Law and Order: Criminal Intent are used solely for entertainment purposes. While, entertainment is not a great justification the role these shows play in the increase of crime, it is the truth. As long as viewers enjoy watching the programs and people are making money the end of crime television is nowhere near. Law and Order and its spinoffs are successful fictional crime dramas. As of 2003 the Law and Orders were in the top 20 of total viewers. In 2003 the shows played for more than twenty-six hours during the week and had more than 88 million viewers, which is more than 30% of the American population (Havrilesky).CSI: Crime Scene Investigation follows close behind Law and Order with 70 million viewers (Shelton). Statistics like these prove just how much the American people find fictional crime drama entertaining. Even though these series’ don’t have a positive influence on crime, they entertain the people which is now one of the ultimate goals of television.
Crime television is not all terrible, but it is not all advantageous to the society either. Copycat crimes have increased with a direct correlation to the increase in crime media. So much exposure with crime can be negative when it comes to potential criminals. Not only can investigative programs and fictional crime dramas give ideas to prospective criminals, but they can also affect the minds of jurors (“Learning”). A case where the minds of the criminal and the jurors were affected by television is the trial of Andrea Yates. Yates was a wife and mother of five battling a major depressive disorder. She spent weeks in treatment centers and was given several different drugs to help her cope with her disorder. On June 20, 2001 after being in and out of treatment for several days Andrea drowned her five children. Yates only explanation for killing her children was that she had been a bad mother and killing them would be the only way to save them from eternal damnation. At her trial, Yates plead not guilty by reason of insanity. During the trial the prosecution presented a witness that stated Yates came up with the idea to drown her children from a recent episode of Law and Order. Because of this testimony the jury found Yates guilty, believing that she had committed a crime copied from television. The jurors did not find her to be clinically insane. They spared her life, not giving her the death penalty, but she was to spend the rest of her life in prison. Three years later at Yates’ appeal her conviction was reviewed following the recant of the witness’ testimony. He later testified that there was no such episode of Law and Order. Andrea Yates now spends the rest of her life in a mental health treatment facility (“The Andrea Yates Story”). We will never know how much of Andrea Yates sentence was determined by the testimony of that witness. We will also never really know the affects of television in the minds of the jurors. But it is safe to say that neither was helpful to the jurors in accurately assessing the mental health and conviction of Andrea Yates.
Along with television negatively affecting the mind of the jury, forensic science is becoming more widespread. More advanced forensic science is putting more and more criminals behind bars; it is also releasing the wrongly accused. With so much advertisement of forensic science on the television from different types of programs, it has become harder to convince jurors of a defendant’s guilt if there is no forensic evidence. Programs such as, Forensic Files, Cold Case Files, and American Justice all show the capture and convictions of criminals using forensic evidence.
Researching the pros and cons of crime television makes one realize just how realistic television can negatively affect society. The more technology advances and the more realistic television becomes the more the idea of censorship should be explored. One has to ask themselves in a situation like this, “Do the pros outweigh the cons?” Sure television like this could give prospective criminal crimes to copy and ideas about how the police would go about solving crimes. But television of this type can also inform the public, and discourage people who want to break the law if they know how easy it is to get caught. Exploring both the beneficial and detrimental points of investigative shows, documentaries, and fictional crime dramas is something that has to be done to gauge the amount of this type of television. The question is no longer, “Should crime television be censored?” The question is now, “When and how much television about illegal activity should be censored?” No matter how much we censor the entertaining pieces of crime television there will always be the news, and the news can’t be censored.
Works Cited
America’s Most Wanted. 15 Apr. 2008< http://www.amw.com/>
Havrilesky, Heather.” Murphy’s Law and Order.” Salon.com.15 Apr.2008.19 Mar. 2003 <http://dir.salon.com/ >
“Learning” Criminological Theory.2005 Florida State University. 15 Apr.2008
Shelton, Donald E.”The CSI Effect: Does it Really Exist.” Office of Justice Programs259(2008). 15 Apr.2008< http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/>
“The Andrea Yates Story.” American Justice. A&E Television Network.5 March 2008
Mr. Million
English 103
15 April 2008
Title
In this day and age it seems like television is becoming more and more realistic. Each day there is another show or movie chronicling the life of a celebrity scandal, criminal, or a top news headline. There is a new fascination with criminal investigations, documentaries about crime, and crime fiction. With the new interest of making real-life unlawful activity into entertainment it is easy to make the connection that these types of television shows could have a detrimental effect on crime: increasing the amount of copycat crimes, giving ideas to potential criminals, and affecting the minds of jurors. For these reasons, some may feel that investigative and fictional television series’ along with documentaries about unlawful behavior should be censored. Fictional investigative programs are used solely for entertainment and could be censored. Even though there are shows that don’t have a positive influence on the decrease in crime, there are other shows that are better at increasing awareness about different types of crime and criminals and should not be censored.
Forms of investigative dramas and documentaries such as, Cold Case Files, American Justice, America’s Most Wanted, The First 48, and Forensic Files, Dateline, 20/20 could be seen as informative and therefore beneficial to the viewer. Since these programs can be useful to the viewer they should not be censored. America’s Most Wanted, a program that is devoted to airing the stories of criminals and missing persons in hopes that their broadcasts will help solve the cases. The program airs reenactments of crimes, descriptions of criminals, and their possible whereabouts. The consistent airings of America’s Most Wanted have assisted in 997 captures of fugitives. The capture of almost 1000 criminals defends the fact that this program and programs similar to this are valuable. One of the most infamous cases that was solved with the help of America’s Most Wanted was the case of John List. List was active in church, had a well paying job, a large family, and lived in an 18 room mansion in Westfield, New Jersey. He was an outwardly happy person, but on the inside this was far from the truth. After losing his job and not being able to pay his bills List devised a plan that he thought would solve his problems. On November 9, 1971 John List systematically murdered five members of his family including his mother, wife, and three teenage children. After cleaning up the crime scene and writing a gruesome confession List went on the run and eluded the police for the next 18 years. Over this 18 year span, his whereabouts still unknown, List assumed a new identity. It wasn’t until May 21, 1989 when America’s Most Wanted stepped in and aired a segment about the fugitive that capturing him became a reality. After airing his segment more than 200 tips came in about the location of John List. In less than two weeks List had been captured. He was sentenced to five consecutive life sentences (amw.com). A capture like this provides evidence that this type of television is a necessary evil and shouldn’t be censored.
Another reason that makes television about crime a necessary evil is the fact that it is entertaining. Fictional series about unlawful behavior such as, CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: New York, Law and Order, Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, Law and Order: Criminal Intent are used solely for entertainment purposes. While, entertainment is not a great justification the role these shows play in the increase of crime, it is the truth. As long as viewers enjoy watching the programs and people are making money the end of crime television is nowhere near. Law and Order and its spinoffs are successful fictional crime dramas. As of 2003 the Law and Orders were in the top 20 of total viewers. In 2003 the shows played for more than twenty-six hours during the week and had more than 88 million viewers, which is more than 30% of the American population (Havrilesky).CSI: Crime Scene Investigation follows close behind Law and Order with 70 million viewers (Shelton). Statistics like these prove just how much the American people find fictional crime drama entertaining. Even though these series’ don’t have a positive influence on crime, they entertain the people which is now one of the ultimate goals of television.
Crime television is not all terrible, but it is not all advantageous to the society either. Copycat crimes have increased with a direct correlation to the increase in crime media. So much exposure with crime can be negative when it comes to potential criminals. Not only can investigative programs and fictional crime dramas give ideas to prospective criminals, but they can also affect the minds of jurors (“Learning”). A case where the minds of the criminal and the jurors were affected by television is the trial of Andrea Yates. Yates was a wife and mother of five battling a major depressive disorder. She spent weeks in treatment centers and was given several different drugs to help her cope with her disorder. On June 20, 2001 after being in and out of treatment for several days Andrea drowned her five children. Yates only explanation for killing her children was that she had been a bad mother and killing them would be the only way to save them from eternal damnation. At her trial, Yates plead not guilty by reason of insanity. During the trial the prosecution presented a witness that stated Yates came up with the idea to drown her children from a recent episode of Law and Order. Because of this testimony the jury found Yates guilty, believing that she had committed a crime copied from television. The jurors did not find her to be clinically insane. They spared her life, not giving her the death penalty, but she was to spend the rest of her life in prison. Three years later at Yates’ appeal her conviction was reviewed following the recant of the witness’ testimony. He later testified that there was no such episode of Law and Order. Andrea Yates now spends the rest of her life in a mental health treatment facility (“The Andrea Yates Story”). We will never know how much of Andrea Yates sentence was determined by the testimony of that witness. We will also never really know the affects of television in the minds of the jurors. But it is safe to say that neither was helpful to the jurors in accurately assessing the mental health and conviction of Andrea Yates.
Along with television negatively affecting the mind of the jury, forensic science is becoming more widespread. More advanced forensic science is putting more and more criminals behind bars; it is also releasing the wrongly accused. With so much advertisement of forensic science on the television from different types of programs, it has become harder to convince jurors of a defendant’s guilt if there is no forensic evidence. Programs such as, Forensic Files, Cold Case Files, and American Justice all show the capture and convictions of criminals using forensic evidence.
Researching the pros and cons of crime television makes one realize just how realistic television can negatively affect society. The more technology advances and the more realistic television becomes the more the idea of censorship should be explored. One has to ask themselves in a situation like this, “Do the pros outweigh the cons?” Sure television like this could give prospective criminal crimes to copy and ideas about how the police would go about solving crimes. But television of this type can also inform the public, and discourage people who want to break the law if they know how easy it is to get caught. Exploring both the beneficial and detrimental points of investigative shows, documentaries, and fictional crime dramas is something that has to be done to gauge the amount of this type of television. The question is no longer, “Should crime television be censored?” The question is now, “When and how much television about illegal activity should be censored?” No matter how much we censor the entertaining pieces of crime television there will always be the news, and the news can’t be censored.
Works Cited
America’s Most Wanted. 15 Apr. 2008< http://www.amw.com/>
Havrilesky, Heather.” Murphy’s Law and Order.” Salon.com.15 Apr.2008.19 Mar. 2003 <http://dir.salon.com/ >
“Learning” Criminological Theory.2005 Florida State University. 15 Apr.2008
Shelton, Donald E.”The CSI Effect: Does it Really Exist.” Office of Justice Programs259(2008). 15 Apr.2008< http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/>
“The Andrea Yates Story.” American Justice. A&E Television Network.5 March 2008
1 comment:
Your position on the issue is unclear in the opening paragraph(s). You need to express what your mediated argument is more clearly, because it is not until the end of your post that I felt like you were mediating the same topic as Kelley. I'm not saying you need to structure your argument like hers, just that you could do a better job of defining what you are going to be presenting to your reader. I like the first two (body) paragraphs. I thought they were setting up what I thought your argument was working toward. I needed some more in-text citation on the John List story. The Andrea Yates story could be condensed, then expanded on regarding the role television played in that case. As of right now, I don't understand how Law and Order factors in to her criminal case.
What does Forensics have to do with the effect of crime television on real-life crimes/criminals?
I'm not getting the impression that crime television necessarily has to be censored, nor when and how much by the end of your argument. I feel like you are working toward more of a middle ground, advocating both for and against crime television. Are you mediating the argument or have you come to a stalemate? It is unclear.
Post a Comment