Crime for Infamy

Three American teenagers fatally shot Australian Chris Lane while he was on his morning jog.

Their motive was one that sent shivers down my spine; a sickening concoction of boredom and the need for attention.

When a tragic and senseless crime such as this occurs a question repetitively pops into my mind.

Should those who commit crime purely for infamy receive media publicity?

Particularly in the case of mass shootings, the media are too often saturated with images and details of the accused’s life leaving them instilled in our minds while the victims are faceless and nameless merely represented by a statistic.

Refraining from publishing details about an accused could act as deterrence to individuals who kill merely to make a name for themself. If the main purpose for the bloodshed was to be thrown into the media spotlight, then not identifying them would deprive them from the satisfaction they crave.

Forbes magazine Journalist Joseph Grenny takes this perspective even further. He suggests that hyped up media that centralises on the perpetrator not only gifts wanted notoriety but entices copycat crime by creating a competition like environment for criminally minded people.

He is pushing for more to be done by legislating on the issue. However, this view is one that is likely to be met angrily by freedom of speech and freedom of information activists. Not to mention media companies that profit enormously from such stories.


Too Much Information?

This week Melbournians have once again been saturated in media coverage of a criminal investigation.

The case of Siraboon Bung first came into the spotlight in 2011 when the primary school girl went missing on her way to school.

Police have allegedly found evidence in regards to the case and are in the process of carrying out a large search investigation.

There is no doubt that the rise of social media has seen an increase in the amount of intricate details that are released to the public. However, at some point it must be asked how much information is too much?

Do we really need to know what brand of machinery is being used to dig up dirt and cut down trees in the suspected crime location?

Personally I felt uncomfortable with the number of tweets published by numerous crime reporters on Twitter these last few days.

How many tweets are too many tweets?

Who’s the Twit in the Court?

As demonstrated by recent Australian high profile criminal cases, such as the Meagher, Morcombe and Baden-Clay murders, the justice system are having to consider the effects of new media on the governing constitutional right to a fair trial.

In the USA and UK there have been a number of cases whereby jurors and witnesses have been caught using social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook to comment on the case they are involved with.

Legally this amounts to contempt of court and is considered a serious violation of the justice system.

Although this is not yet a major issue affecting Australian courts, NSW have decided to cut the head off the snake enacting an amendment to the NSW Court Security Act (2005).

The newly incorporated section prohibits the ‘unauthorised transmission of court proceedings from the courtroom’ including communication through the use of tablets, smartphones and laptops.

Violation of this act carries with it fines of up to $22,000 and up to 12 months imprisonment.

There has been a significant amount of backlash amongst journalists in relation to these amendments arguing that the restrictions are a violation of freedom of speech. However, under section 9(2)(d) of the act, journalists and lawyers are exempt from the provision.

Which begs the question of whether this is just another overreaction from the media?

Yes it is true, the act eradicates citizen journalism in the courtrooms as explored in this blog.

However, it must be remembered that this is an individual’s life we are talking about not the newest Cake Pop recipe on Pinterest.

Court reporting should be left to professional journalists who have extensive knowledge of the laws and understand the degree of sensitivity needed in addressing legal proceedings.  This appears to be a move in the right direction towards a more amiable coexistence between new media and the courts.

Opening the Courts

Earlier this month the Open Court Bill 2013 entered the Legislative Assembly in Victoria. The bill predominately concerns the issuing of media suppression orders by the courts.

Over the past few years Victoria has been dubbed the suppression order capital of Australia and there has been criticism that the long-standing “open justice principle” is being jeopardised.

Currently the courts are meant to enforce an order only in select circumstances such as cases involving children, sexual offenders, national security and police informers. However, there is not a closed list of categories and judges are able to issue an order in any case that they believe it is necessary to do so.

Not only is there uncertainty in regards to how often suppression orders are made but there is also concern over whether in the digital age they are still effective.

Often case information that has been suppressed from publication is readily accessed online despite traditional media outlets adhering to the order. Particularly since the raise of social media these kind of orders are being undermined as the everyday individual publishes material that they may not even be aware has been suppressed.

This was well demonstrated in the UK with the scandal involving a football player that was “unable to be named” but which was well known to be Manchester United’s, Ryan Giggs.

Despite the argument that suppression orders are now pointless they do serve an important protectionist role, particularly in regards to children and victims of sexual offences.

The bill will hopefully see a return of the original purpose of suppression orders, which is to safeguard the vulnerable and ensure a fair trial, while opening up the court system by restricting orders made merely to save prominent figures from embarrassment.

Interested? Read more here.