Media Review

Today I am commenting on the medium, The Dominion Post, but I'm sure the same criticism can be made against most media reporting crime.

Christian Harry Brusey has been given an indefinite jail term for his 220th offence, with a non-parole period of 8 years. The most current charges relate to home invasions on women alone in their houses. Justice Gendall cited preventative detention as the only adequate way to protect further women from harm.

In addition to reporting on the case and its outcomes, the newspaper also took the common step of interviewing the victims. This is where my criticisim comes in. The media ask questions of victims about the appropriateness of the sentence, and the likelihood of reoffending.

After the sentencing, a victim of one of Brusey's home invasions and sex crimes said she was satisfied with the sentence because she believed Brusey would "always be dangerous to women".

Another Brusey victim said it was the best possible outcome.

Victims are given no special epistemic position because of their status as victims. They do not become experts because of it. Then why should their opinions matter more than other parties? Especially pressing, is that their opinions are sourght before the opinions of criminologists and psychiatrists.

I suppose the obvious response is that the media are going for the emotional connection, and victims are easy to interview. They're at court. Reporters also know that those opinions matter to the readers. In fact, it could be seen as unfair or unbalanced reporting to exclude the opinions of those affected.

Then perhaps my criticism is more towards focused our society. Why do we see the opinions of victims as credible indication of the appropriate sentencing response?


Image: Copyright The Dominion Post.