Stalk me!

The following post is an expansion on Kristine’s blog in relation to cybercrime.         

http://krissyscrim2027blog.blogspot.com/2011/06/final-blog-reflective-note.html

Firstly, I am hopeless with technology so the sudden obsession with new technologies and social networking is a little overwhelming, but when we add cybercrime to the mix, well that is really quite worrying. Social networking sites such as facebook have become the new place where it is common to post everything and anything about yourself. I’m sure many of us can relate to behaving differently online than we would in reality simple because we have that ‘cyberspace’ barrier. Evidently the perpetrators of cybercrime are ‘faceless’ and therefore difficult to identify. This is concerning as Paedophilia on the internet, specifically termed as ‘cyber obscenity’ (Marsh & Melville, 2009) has gained much media attention, and when individuals are willing to reveal personal information about themselves over the internet it is only understandable why parents are creating their own accounts to ‘stalk’ their kids. The term ‘stalk’ I find has also lost its sensitivity as it has become a common phrase relating to finding people through social media and looking at their information, which I guess could reasonably account to stalking.

The actual extent of paedophilia on the internet is difficult to measure due to the ‘secrecy and anonymity that such behaviour encourages’ (Marsh & Melville, 2009) and there is also a lack of clarity in defining the act. Evidently it is clear that self-regulation and acting responsibly and cautiously over the internet is the simplest way to avoid becoming a victim of cybercrime. Increasingly, education surrounding cybercrime is focused around self-regulation, of understanding the risks and monitoring children’s social networking activity, without being too invasive or ‘stalking’.

American show ‘To Catch a Predator’ is a part of Datelines latest investigation into online sex predators. The show involves an actress posing as a 13 year old, who invites the men into her backyard and offers them a drink. Then the host appears and interviews them and upon leaving the police make the arrest. The show is a confusing blur between entertainment and public display of paedophiles. Does this cross an ethical boundary? Furthermore, along with the broadening definition of crime associated with the development of new technologies, is the increase in types of crime only going to result in more crime related ‘infotainment’ shows?

I.Marsh, G. Melville (2009) Crime, Justice and the Media, Routledge, chap. 7

On Trial

‘On Trial’, Australia’s first documentary series revealing the workings of Australian courts and providing behind the scenes access to major criminal trials, aired on ABC tonight. Members of the court, particularly the defence barrister and the crown prosecutor are interviewed explaining their roles and breaking down legal jargon and the courts proceedings.

The accused stands charged with threatening to shoot the victim with a firearm but the accused claims he was in fact the victim of an armed robbery. If the accused is found guilty on 3 firearm counts, possessing, using to intimidate and firing an unlicensed firearm, he faces a 14 year sentence. The case itself is controversial with evidence constantly swaying from in favour of the defence to in favour of the prosecution. Evidently to keep viewers engaged, the trials documented would have to fit the criteria of being relatively emotional, debatable, novel or violent. Certain factors such as these, which relate to ‘newsworthiness’ (Jewkes, 2004) can evidently be applied to the attractiveness of the ABC ‘On Trial’ documentary series and thus determine its success amongst its viewers.

It will be interesting for the public to understand the actual proceedings of court cases and how long and boring they often actually are, depending on the cases they choose to show. The accused has already served 10months in goal on remand and reveals the impact it has had on his life including the loss of his job. For those who are not so familiar with the courts, I think it is important to understand the legal process and its implications such as how long many trials take to be heard and consequently the length of time people can be held in remand.

Tim Macintosh, Crown Prosecutor states, ‘There is a search going on for the truth at one level, but it’s only a search that can take place within the rules of the game.. it’s a play between proof and truth.’ His statement is supported throughout the episode with both sides scrounging for anything as which to dismiss the other sides arguments. It also becomes apparent how important the jury is and that how they are to interpret evidence is greatly considered by both sides. Furthermore there are matters which are addressed in the absence of the jury as it is important to ensure evidence is reliable and admissible before heard by the jury as to avoid prejudice. Viewers are thus able to see facts which the jury may never hear in which I think the documentary has addressed very effectively, enabling the viewers to be the investigators and determine an outcome.

Evidently the courts are given little attention in the media so it will be interesting to see how the documentary series rates and if more attention will be paid to the courts in future.  

S. Lambert (2010) On Trial: Proof or Truth, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)

Y. Jewkes (2004) Media and Crime, Sage Publications, London, Chap. 2