Media and Crime Assignment Report

Submitted by: Naisha Mehrotra and Insha Rana

BA HONS PSYCHOLOGY

Role of Media in Shaping Criminal Justice Policies

Introduction
The media plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception and, consequently, influencing
criminal justice policies. The media’s portrayal of crimes and suspects often gravitates
towards sensationalism, where the emphasis on dramatic aspects of a case takes
precedence over a nuanced understanding of the legal complexities involved. Media
reporting frequently exhibits biases and perpetuates stereotypes, contributing to a distorted
view of criminal activities and those accused. Examining the role of stereotypes and biases in
media coverage, this subsection will delve into how preconceived notions may affect public
attitudes, influence jury selection, and impede the pursuit of justice, emphasizing the need
for a balanced and unbiased portrayal in the media.
Public perception, moulded by media coverage, can significantly impact legal proceedings,
particularly in cases that garner extensive pretrial publicity.
Central to legal ethics is the duty of both prosecutors and defence attorneys to ensure a fair
trial, untainted by external influences.
Through various mechanisms such as agenda setting, priming, and framing, the media can
highlight specific issues, shape public opinion, and pressure policymakers to act.

Mechanisms of Media Influence

Agenda Setting: One of the primary ways the media influences justice policies is through
agenda setting. This process involves the media highlighting certain issues, making them
more prominent in public discourse. By giving extensive coverage to specific crimes or
criminal justice issues, the media can make these topics more salient in the minds of the
public and policymakers. This increased visibility often leads to greater public concern and
pressure on policymakers to address these issues.
Priming: Through repeated coverage of certain types of crime, the media influences the
criteria by which the public evaluates political leaders and policies. For instance, if the media
frequently reports on violent crimes, the public may prioritize crime control in their
evaluation of political candidates, leading to increased support for punitive measures.
Framing: The way the media presents crime stories can significantly shape public perception
and attitudes. For example, focusing on violent crimes and portraying them as widespread
can create a perception that crime is out of control, leading to demands for tougher laws
and policies.
Influence on Policymakers: Media coverage can open windows of opportunity for policy
change by drawing attention to specific issues. Policymakers, who are often responsive to
public opinion, may feel compelled to act in response to media coverage to maintain public
support. This can lead to the rapid implementation of new policies or the modification of
existing ones.
Shaping Public Opinion: The media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion by
providing information and framing issues in a particular way. This, in turn, influences
policymakers who are responsive to public opinion.
For example, extensive media coverage of drug-related crimes in the 1980s and 1990s led to
a public outcry for tougher drug laws, resulting in the implementation of stringent drug
policies.
The media’s portrayal of drug use and drug-related crimes as rampant and out of control
contributed to the public’s support for these harsh measures.
Similarly, media coverage of terrorism following the 9/11 attacks led to the implementation
of various anti-terrorism laws, such as the USA PATRIOT Act. These laws expanded
surveillance and law enforcement Anti-Terrorism Legislation: Following the 9/11 attacks,
intense media coverage of terrorism led to the implementation of various anti-terrorism
laws, such as the USA PATRIOT Act. These laws expanded surveillance and law enforcement
powers to prevent future attacks. The media’s portrayal of the terrorist threat as imminent
and severe influenced public opinion and policy decisions.
The USA PATRIOT Act, for example, granted law enforcement agencies broad powers to
conduct surveillance, search records, and detain individuals suspected of terrorism-related
activities. While these measures were aimed at enhancing national security, they also
sparked debates about civil liberties and the balance between security and individual rights
powers to prevent future attacks, reflecting the public’s heightened concern about terrorism.
Three Strikes Laws:
In the United States, the media’s focus on violent crimes and repeat offenders in the 1990s
led to the implementation of “Three Strikes” laws. These laws mandate severe penalties for
repeat offenders, significantly increasing prison populations. The media’s portrayal of repeat
offenders as a major threat to public safety played a crucial role in garnering public support
for these laws. The “Three Strikes” laws were designed to deter repeat offenders by
imposing harsher sentences, including life imprisonment, for those convicted of three or
more serious crimes.
The media’s emphasis on high-profile cases involving repeat offenders created a sense of
urgency and fear, leading to widespread public support for these punitive measures.
In Mattoo case justice for Jessica campaign steered trial of the accused charged with rape
and murder of the law student named
Priyadarshini Mattoo and with the intervention of media investigation of the case was fast-
tracked and the accused was convicted.
In Sanjeev Nanda Case, Nanda, son of a businessman alleged with hit and run case killing
over six people while driving his BMW in intoxication. Media intervened and case was
subjudice. NDTV news channel conducted a sting operation showing Nanda’s lawyer bribing
the witness, while the state prosecutor being complicit and helped in the discovery of the
truth.
In the case of Arushi Talwar media created frenzy. In high profile cases media is often
creating a wide spread public opinion, regardless of depriving the basic human right of
accused.
Sheena Bora Murder case has given rise to controversial aspect of reporting of trial
proceedings of the accused as every aspect of her life was under public scrutiny which had
nothing to do with the case or the general public.
In Nanavathi case due to the reports of the media the jury got influenced and there was
prejudice to the case which affected the administration of justice. The media can interfere
with the administration of justice by the way of scandalizing the judges, interfering with
witnesses, interfering with investigation procedure by tampering evidence and contentious
publications in connection with the proceedings which are pending before the court. These
interferences impose a threat to fair administration of justice and constitutional guarantee
of fair trial
Citizen Journalism: The rise of citizen journalism, where ordinary individuals document and
share news events, has also impacted criminal justice policies.
Videos and live streams of incidents, such as police encounters, can provide unfiltered
accounts that challenge official narratives and prompt public outcry and demands for
accountability.
The impact of media influence extends beyond mere information dissemination, often
permeating the very fabric of legal proceedings. As news outlets strive for immediacy and
sensationalism, the nuances of cases may be oversimplified, contributing to biased
narratives and potentially compromising the fairness of trials.

Positive and Negative Impacts

Benefits of Media Influence:

The media can play a positive role by bringing attention to important issues that may
otherwise be overlooked. For example, media coverage of wrongful convictions has led to
policy changes aimed at preventing such injustices.
Additionally, the media can help hold policymakers accountable by scrutinizing their actions
and decisions. Investigative journalism, for instance, can uncover corruption and misconduct
within the criminal justice system, prompting reforms and policy changes.
The media’s role in highlighting social justice issues, such as police brutality and racial
disparities in the criminal justice system, has also contributed to increased awareness and
calls for reform.
Potential Drawbacks and Unintended Consequences:
However, the media’s influence is not always beneficial. Sensationalist reporting can create
moral panics and lead to the implementation of overly punitive policies. For instance, the
media’s focus on violent crimes can create a perception that crime is more prevalent than it
actually is, leading to demands for harsher penalties. Moreover, media-driven policies may
prioritize public fear over effective crime prevention and rehabilitation.

• One example of a law that has been changed due to media influence is the
introduction of Megan's Law in the United States. Megan's Law requires law
enforcement authorities to make information about registered sex offenders
available to the public.
• This law was named after Megan Kanka, a young girl who was sexually assaulted and
murdered by a known sex offender living in her neighbourhood. The intense media
coverage of Megan's tragic case led to public outrage and calls for stricter measures
to protect communities from sex offenders.
• As a result, Megan's Law was enacted to increase public awareness and safety
regarding sex offenders, showcasing how media coverage can drive legislative
changes in response to high-profile cases.

• Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the United
States. The brutal murders of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student, and James
Byrd Jr., an African American man, received extensive media coverage, highlighting
the severity of hate crimes.
• This media attention sparked public outcry and pushed for legislation to address
hate-motivated violence. The enactment of this law expanded the definition of hate
crimes to include those based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability,
demonstrating how media coverage can lead to legislative reforms to combat
discriminatory crimes.

• One notable Indian example of a law change influenced by media coverage is the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, often referred to as the Nirbhaya Act.

• This law was enacted in response to the horrific gang rape and murder of a young
woman in Delhi in December 2012, which garnered widespread media attention and
sparked nationwide protests demanding justice and stricter laws to combat sexual
violence.

• The intense media coverage of the case brought to light the issue of gender-based
violence in India and pressured lawmakers to take action.
 The Nirbhaya Act introduced several amendments to the Indian Penal Code,
including harsher punishments for sexual offenses, such as increasing the minimum
sentence for rape and introducing new offenses like acid attacks and stalking. The law
also addressed procedural reforms to improve the handling of sexual assault cases,
such as fast-track courts for expedited trials.

• The Vishakha Guidelines (1997)

Background: The Vishakha case involved the gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social
worker in Rajasthan, who was trying to prevent a child marriage.
Media Influence: Extensive media coverage brought national attention to the issue
of workplace sexual harassment.
Policy Change: The Supreme Court of India issued the Vishakha Guidelines, which
laid down procedures for dealing with sexual harassment at the workplace. These
guidelines eventually led to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act in 2013

• In the UK, extensive media coverage of youth crime and anti-social behaviour in the
late 1990s and early 2000s led to the introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
(ASBOs). The media often portrayed young people as a significant threat to public
order, which created public pressure for the government to take action. ASBOs were
designed to restrict the behaviour of individuals deemed to be causing harassment,
alarm, or distress to others

• In Japan, media coverage of juvenile crime, particularly violent acts committed by

minors, has led to revisions in the Juvenile Law. The media often highlights cases
involving young offenders, which has resulted in public calls for stricter measures and
changes in how juvenile offenders are treated within the legal system

• The rape and murder of Jill Meagher by Adrian Bayley in September 2012, parole
became the focus of nationwide media attention. The ensuing public outrage, and
subsequent review of the parole system by former High Court judge Ian Callinan,
resulted in significant changes to Victorian parole laws and practices.

Cumulatively, these changes represent the most significant tightening of access to

parole in Victoria's history.
Case Study: 1

Introduction
The O.J. Simpson trial stands as an iconic example of media influence on the criminal justice
process. The O.J. Simpson murder case (officially titled People of the State of California v.
Orenthal James Simpson) was a criminal trial held in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Former NFL player and actor O.J. Simpson was tried on two counts of murder for the June
12, 1994, deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman.
The trial spanned from the jury’s swearing-in on November 9, 1994, to opening statements
on January 24, 1995, to a verdict on October 3, 1995. The trial, described as the “trial of the
century,” was one of the most publicized events in American history. It highlighted many
issues about and within the criminal justice system, including questions about race and the
legal power of celebrity. Simpson’s acquittal was a controversial decision that polarized the
American public and remains a topic of debate.
The O.J. Simpson trial, formally known as the People of the State of California v. Orenthal
James Simpson, not only riveted the nation but also exposed deep-seated issues within the
American criminal justice system, particularly in its interactions with race relations and
media influence. O.J. Simpson, a former NFL star and actor, was accused of the brutal
murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. The trial
unfolded against the backdrop of Los Angeles, a city still reeling from the racial tensions
exacerbated by the Rodney King incident and the subsequent LA riots in 1992.
This perspective was significantly influenced by the treatment of Rodney King and other
similar cases involving the LAPD, which set the stage for a deep mistrust of law enforcement.
The defence team, led by Johnnie Cochran, skilfully leveraged this context to their
advantage, framing Simpson as a victim of a corrupt system trying to pin a crime on him
because of his race. This narrative resonated with many people, particularly jurors who
might have had their own experiences of discrimination or negative encounters with the
police.
The trial itself was further complicated by several key issues, including the conduct of the
prosecution and the strategies employed by Simpson’s defence team. The defence, dubbed
the “Dream Team,” was a high-profile group of attorneys including Cochran, Robert Shapiro,
and F. Lee Bailey. They mounted a vigorous defence that aggressively challenged the
prosecution’s evidence and highlighted mistakes made by the LAPD. One of the pivotal
moments was the focus on Detective Mark Fuhrman, a key prosecution witness, who was
portrayed by the defence as having racially prejudiced motives, which severely discredited
much of the evidence he had handled. The O.J. Simpson trial highlighted several systemic
issues within the American legal framework, from how racial biases could influence judicial
proceedings to the impact of media sensationalism on public perception and court
processes.
The Simpson trial served as a catalyst for nationwide debates over the fairness of criminal
prosecutions and the extent to which race and fame can tip the scales of justice.
This case also underscored the need for ongoing reforms within the judicial system,
particularly in ensuring that all individuals—regardless of status or background—receive a
fair and impartial trial. As such, the legacy of the O.J. Simpson trial extends beyond the
courtroom, reminding us of the profound responsibilities of the media, the legal profession,
and society at large in upholding the principles of justice and equality.

Evidence:

• DNA Evidence:
This was a cornerstone of the prosecution’s case. Over nine weeks, 108 exhibits of
DNA evidence were presented, including 61 drops of blood.
The DNA evidence linked Simpson to the crime scene, the victims, and his own
home. Blood found at the crime scene matched Simpson’s DNA, and blood found in
Simpson’s Bronco and home matched the victims’ DNA.
• Gloves:
A pair of gloves played a significant role in the trial. One glove was found at the crime
scene, and its match was found at Simpson’s home.
The prosecution argued that these gloves were worn by the killer.
However, during the trial, Simpson famously tried on the gloves, and they appeared
not to fit, leading to the defence’s memorable line, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”
• Hair and Fiber Evidence:
Hairs consistent with Simpson’s were found on a cap at the crime scene and on Ron
Goldman’s shirt.
Additionally, fibres consistent with the carpet in Simpson’s Bronco were found on the
glove at his home and on the cap at the crime scene.
• Shoe Prints:
Bloody shoe prints at the crime scene were identified as coming from a size 12
Bruno Magli shoe, a rare and expensive brand. Simpson was known to wear size 12
shoes, and photographs later surfaced showing him wearing Bruno Magli shoes.
• Blood Evidence:
Blood drops found near the shoe prints at the crime scene matched Simpson’s blood
type, which is shared by only about 0.5% of the population.
Blood was also found in Simpson’s Bronco, in the foyer and master bedroom of his
home, and on a pair of socks in his bedroom that matched Nicole Brown Simpson’s
blood.
• Flight and Behaviour:
Simpson’s behaviour following the murders, including his infamous low-speed
Bronco chase, was used by the prosecution to suggest guilt.
His reaction to being informed of Nicole Brown Simpson’s death was also
scrutinized.
 History of Domestic Violence:
The prosecution presented evidence of Simpson’s history of domestic violence
against Nicole Brown Simpson, including a 9-1-1 call she made in 1993. This was used
to establish a motive for the murders.
• The extensive media coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial led to changes in how media
is allowed to cover court proceedings.
• Courts have since implemented stricter guidelines to balance transparency with the
need to maintain order and fairness in the courtroom

• Domestic Violence Legislation:

The case brought significant attention to domestic violence issues. The Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA) was signed into law in 1994, shortly after the murders of Nicole Brown
Simpson and Ron Goldman. This act provided federal resources to address domestic
violence, including funding for shelters and legal assistance for victims.

• Jury Selection and Management: The case highlighted the challenges of selecting an
impartial jury in high-profile cases. This led to more rigorous processes for jury
selection and management, including sequestering juries to prevent media influence.

• Attorney Conduct: The trial brought attention to the behaviour of attorneys in the
courtroom, leading to stricter enforcement of professional conduct rules. This
includes limitations on public commentary by attorneys during ongoing trials.

• Evidence Handling and Forensics: The handling of evidence in the O.J. Simpson case,
particularly DNA evidence, prompted reforms in forensic science and evidence
handling procedures to ensure greater accuracy and reliability.

• Attorney Conduct and Ethics: The behaviour of attorneys during the Simpson trial
highlighted the need for stricter enforcement of professional conduct rules. This
includes limitations on public commentary by attorneys during ongoing trials to
prevent influencing public opinion and the jury

Chargesheet:

• Legal Proceedings
Trial: The trial began on January 24, 1995, and lasted until October 3, 1995. It was
one of the most publicized trials in American history, often referred to as
"The Trial of the Century"
 • Verdict: On October 3, 1995, the jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty of the murders

Verdict
On October 3, 1995, after a highly publicized trial that lasted over eight months, the jury
delivered a verdict of not guilty for O.J. Simpson on both counts of murder for the deaths of
Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
The verdict was reached after less than four hours of deliberation, which was surprisingly
quick given the complexity and length of the trial.

Key Factors Influencing the Verdict

• Reasonable Doubt: The defence team, led by Johnnie Cochran, successfully argued
that there was reasonable doubt regarding Simpson’s guilt. They highlighted
inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and questioned the reliability of the
evidence presented.
• Racial Tensions: The trial took place in a context of significant racial tension in Los
Angeles, following the Rodney King incident and subsequent riots.
The defence argued that Simpson was a victim of systemic racism and that the LAPD had
framed him. This argument resonated with many, particularly in the African American
community.

• Evidence Handling:
The defence cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence, suggesting that it had been
mishandled or even tampered with by the police. They pointed to specific instances,
such as the collection and storage of blood samples, to argue that the evidence could
not be trusted.
• Mark Fuhrman:
The credibility of LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman, who found key pieces of
evidence, was severely damaged when tapes surfaced of him using racial slurs and
discussing police misconduct. This bolstered the defence’s argument that Simpson
was framed by a racist police force.
• The Gloves:
One of the most memorable moments of the trial was when Simpson tried on the
gloves found at the crime scene and his home, and they appeared not to fit.
Cochran famously told the jury, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” which became a
pivotal point in the trial.

• Public Reaction
 The verdict was met with a starkly divided public reaction. Many African Americans
celebrated the acquittal, viewing it as a victory against a historically biased legal
system.
Conversely, many white Americans and others were shocked and outraged, believing
that Simpson had gotten away with murder.

Media Coverage: The trial was a watershed moment for media coverage of legal
proceedings. It was one of the first trials to be broadcast live on television, setting a
precedent for future high-profile cases. The extensive media coverage also raised
questions about the impact of media on the judicial process.

• The final verdict in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial was delivered on October 3, 1995.
After a highly publicized and lengthy trial, the jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty of
the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
• This verdict was reached after less than four hours of jury deliberation.

• The decision was met with mixed reactions, reflecting deep racial and social divides
in the United States.

• Many African Americans saw the verdict as a victory against a biased legal system,
while many others believed that Simpson had been wrongfully acquitted.

• In a subsequent civil trial in 1997, Simpson was found liable for the wrongful deaths
of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman and was ordered to pay $33.5 million in
damages to the victims’ families.

• The case had a lasting impact on the legal system, media coverage of trials, forensic
science, and public awareness of domestic violence. It remains one of the most
significant and controversial legal cases in American history.
Case 2: The Murder of Megan Kanka: Megan's Law Was Created
On July 29, 1994, 7-year-old Megan Kanka disappeared from her neighbourhood in Hamilton
Township, New Jersey. A search began after her parents found her abandoned bike on their
front lawn. They were aided by several neighbours, including Jesse K. Timmendequas, 33,
who lived across the street from the Kankas.
As people continued to look for Megan, someone alerted police about Joseph F. Cifelli, who
lived with Timmendequas in a house owned by Cifelli’s mother. In 1976, Cifelli had been
charged with carnal abuse and sodomy of a 5-year-old girl; he was convicted of three lesser
offenses.
Police learned that Cifelli and Brian R. Jenin, another roommate who was a convicted sex
offender, had alibis. Timmendequas, who had been convicted of two separate sexual attacks
on young girls in New Jersey, did not. investigators found cut-up strips of cloth in garbage
bins that Timmendequas had handled, which Megan’s mother recognized as material from
the shorts her daughter had been wearing. When interviewed by police, Timmendequas
initially denied the crime, but eventually admitted that he’d killed Megan. He directed
authorities to where he’d left her corpse in Mercer County Park. Megan’s body was found on
July 30, 1994.
Over the course of multiple interviews, Timmendequas told detectives he’d invited Megan to
his house to see a new puppy. Once inside, he’d slapped her before sexually assaulting her.
He admitted he’d strangled Megan to keep her from telling her mother that he had
“touched” her.
Timmendequas shared that he’d been watching Megan play while living across the street. As
he did so, he said, “I would get sweaty palms and my heart would race.”

The Criminal in the Neighbourhood

In October 1979, before murdering Kanka, Timmendequas assaulted a 5-year-old girl he’d
asked to look for ducks with him. Following this attack, he agreed to plead guilty to
attempted aggravated sexual assault. He was offered the chance of a suspended sentence—
and no jail time—if he went to counselling. When he did not attend therapy, he ended up
spending nine months in the Middlesex County Adult Correctional Centre.
In June 1981, after being released, Timmendequas enticed a 7-year-old girl to walk in nearby
woods with him by talking about firecrackers. He attacked and choked her, then left his
victim when she turned blue. The girl was unconscious, but alive, when her mother found
her.
Timmendequas pleaded guilty to attempted sexual contact and attempting to cause serious
bodily injury. The maximum sentence for these charges was 10 years.
The judge, who called Timmendequas a “compulsive, repetitive sexual offender” who
“constitutes a danger to the public at large and to young children in particular,” imposed the
full sentence
Timmendequas was sent to the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Centre in Avenel, N.J.,
where sexual offenders were treated. While at Avenel, Timmendequas reportedly did not
engage in therapy sessions. He did meet his two future roommates: Jenin and Cifelli. As was
standard at the time, Timmendequas was released less than seven years into his sentence.

After Kanka’s death, learning of this predatory criminal history devastated her family and
others. Kathryn Marsh, a prosecutor and specialist in child abuse and sexual assault cases,
tells A&E True Crime, “The community was outraged that they had not been made aware of
this information.”

Legislative Changes:

• Megan’s Law:
Though Megan’s parents, Richard and Maureen Kanka, had lived in Hamilton Township for
16 years, they had no idea that convicted sex offenders lived so close. They said if they’d
known, they wouldn’t have let their daughter play outside without supervision.
Soon after Megan’s death, the Kankas and others began to press for a law to mandate
community notification if a sex offender moved into a neighbourhood. New Jersey’s version
of Megan’s Law was signed by the governor at the end of October 1994, just months after
Megan’s death.
The Kankas continued to advocate for other states to pass their own versions of Megan’s
Law.
“We have said all along that no law is going to prevent every sexual assault on children,”
Richard Kanka stated in 1995. “But if it saves one child, it will be worth it.” Maureen Kanka
said in 1996: “I have no problems opening my heart and crying and being personal with
strangers, as long as I can open somebody’s eyes.”
On May 17, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a federal version of Megan’s Law.
Though states could set their own parameters for notification, the law required all states to
have some registry available to the public so people could know when a sex offender moved
nearby.
Laura Ahearn, an attorney and the executive director of the Crime Victims Centre, tells A&E
True Crime “Megan’s Law gave an opportunity for people in the community to be [made]
aware of those individuals, so that they could take necessary precautions to protect
themselves and their children from those offenders.”
Legislative Background
The U.S. Congress has passed several laws that require states to implement sex offender and
crimes against children registries: the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually
Violent Offender Registration Act, the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and
Identification Act, and Megan's Law.
On March 5, 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled that information about potential
predators may be publicly posted on the Internet.

The Impact of Megan’s Law

According to RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network), in cases of child sexual
abuse, 59 percent of perpetrators are acquaintances of the victim, while 34 percent are
family members. Understanding who is present in a child’s life, including neighbours, is an
important part of keeping children safe. “[Given] the majority of child sexual abuse cases are
committed by someone the child knows—a family member, coach, neighbour, teacher,
etc.—when we can limit the access of sexual predators to children, we can protect more
children,” says Marsh.
Ahearn also believes Megan’s Law helped open people’s eyes to a widespread societal
problem. “Megan’s Law and sexual registration started this process of people becoming
aware of child sexual abuse by seeing sex offenders in the community.”
Megan’s killer is currently serving a life sentence. Although he was originally sentenced to
death, that changed when New Jersey eliminated the death penalty.

Expansions of Megan’s Law

Megan’s Law was preceded by the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually
Violent Offender Registration Act (1994), which called for registries of convicted sex
offenders, but did not require community notification. Megan’s Law was followed by other
laws to protect children, like the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of
2006. Title I of that act was the Sex Offender Registry Notification Act.

“The Sex Offender Registry Notification Act (SORNA) and the Adam Walsh Act
supplemented and expanded Megan’s Law,” Marsh explains. “Further, these acts helped
establish more uniformity across the states when it comes to registration requirements, such
as the length of time someone should be on the registry and how often an individual needs
to register.”
On February 8, 2016, the International Megan’s Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and
Other Sexual Crimes through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders was signed
into law by President Barack Obama. Referred to as International Megan’s Law, it orders
registered sex offenders to report international travel prior to departure. A notice of
conviction of sex offenses against a child is now included in offenders’ passports.

Megan’s Law and other laws calling for sex offender registries and community notification
have been challenged in court. Opponents have said the laws violate the civil liberties of sex
offenders, pose challenges to rehabilitation and consist of a second punishment for the
same crime. However, Megan’s Law and its successors remain in effect.

Case 3: The Mathura Rape Case –

Landmark case which led to the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) in 1983

• FACTS OF THE CASE:

Appellant No. 1 was a Head Constable of police, was attached to the Desai Gunj police
station and so was appellant No.2, who was a police constable. Mathura (PW 1) was the girl
who is said to have been raped. Her parents died when she was a child and she was living
with her brother, Gama (PW 3), both of them worked as labourers to earn a living. Mathura
used to go the house of Nushi (PW 2) for work and during the course of her visits to that
house, came into contact with Ashok, who was the sister’s son of Nushi and was residing
with the latter. The contact developed into an intimacy so that Ashok and Mathura decided
to become husband and wife.
On the 26 March’ 1972, Gama lodged report Ex. P-8 at police station Desai Gunj alleging that
Mathura had been kidnapped by Nushi, her husband Laxman and the said Ashok. The report
was recorded by Head Constable Baburao (PW 8) at whose instance all the three persons
complained against as well as Mathura was brought to the police station at about 9 p.m.
later the statements of the two lovers were recorded. By then it was about 10.30 p.m. and
Baburao left the police station to bring some documents and have his meal. At that time the
two appellants were present at the police station.
After Baburao had gone away Mathura, Nushi, Gama and Ashok started leaving the police
station. The appellants, however, asked Mathura to wait at the police station and told her
companions to move out. Thereafter Ganpat (appellant) took Mathura into a latrine situated
at the rear of the main building, loosened her under-wear, lit a torch and stared at her
private parts. He then dragged her to a chhapri which served the main building. In the
chhapri he felled her on the ground and raped her in spite of protests and stiff resistance on
her part. He departed after satisfying his lust and then Tukaram (appellant), who was seated
on a cot nearby, came to the place where Mathura was and forded her private parts. He also
wanted to rape her but was unable to do so for the reason that he was in a highly
intoxicated condition.
Nushi, Gama and Ashok, who had been waiting outside the police station for Mathura grew
suspicious when they found the lights of the police station being turned off and its entrance
door being closed from within. They went to the rear of the police station in order to find
out what the matter was. No light was visible inside and when Nushi shouted for Mathura
there was no response. The noise attracted a crowd and sometime later Mathura emerged
from the rear of the police station and informed Nushi and Gama that Ganpat had
compelled her to undress herself and had raped her.
Nushi took Mathura to Dr. Khune (PW 9) and the former told him that the girl was subjected
to rape by a police constable and a Head Constable in police station Desai Gunj. The doctor
told them to go to the police station and lodge a report there.
A few persons brought Head Constable Baburao from his house. He found that the crowd
had grown restive and was threatening to beat Ganpat appellant and also to burn down the
police station. Baburao however, was successful in persuading the crowd to disperse and
thereafter took down the statement (Ex. 5) of Mathura.
Mathura was examined by Dr. Kamal Shastrakar at 8 p.m. on the 27 March’ 1972. The girl
had no injury on her person. Her hymen revealed old ruptures. The vagina admitted two
fingers easily. There was no matting of the pubic hair. The age of the girl was estimated by
the doctor to be between 14 and 16 years. A sample of the pubic hair and two vaginal-smear
slides were sent by the doctor in a sealed packet to the Chemical Examiner who found no
traces of semen therein. Presence of semen was however detected on the girl’s clothes and
the pyjama which was taken off by Ganpat.
This appeal by special leave was filed against the judgment dated 12 Oct’ 1976 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench).

• PROCEEDINGS AT THE TRIAL AND HIGH COURT:

• The learned Sessions Judge found that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove
that Mathura was below 16 years of age on the date of the occurrence. He further
held that she was “a shocking liar” whose testimony “is riddled with falsehood and
improbabilities”. But he observed that “the farthest one can go into believing her and
the corroborative circumstances, would be the conclusion that while at the Police
Station, she had sexual intercourse and that, in all probability, this was with accused
No. 2.” He added however that there was a world of difference between “sexual
intercourse” and “rape”, and that rape had not been proved.
• He further observed:
• “Finding Nushi angry and knowing that Nushi would suspect something fishy,
Mathura could not have very well admitted that of her own free will, she had
 surrendered her body to a Police Constable. This is why it is a possibility she might
have invented the story of having been confined at the Police Station and raped by
accused No. 2. Mathura is habituated to sexual intercourse, as is clear from the
testimony of Dr. Shastratkar and accused No. 2 and then concluded that the
prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants.
• The High Court took note of the various findings arrived at by the learned Sessions
Judge and then itself proceeded to shift the evidence bearing in mind the principle
that a reversal of the acquittal would not be justified if the view taken by the trial
court was reasonably possible even though the High Court was inclined to take a
different view of the facts.
• The fact that semen was found neither on the pubic hair nor on the vaginal-smears
was considered to be of no consequence by reason of the circumstance that the girl
was examined by the lady doctor about 20 hours after the event, and of the
probability that she had taken a bath in the meantime. The High Court proceeded to
observe that although the learned Sessions Judge was right in saying that there was a
world of difference between sexual intercourse and rape, he erred in appreciating
the difference between consent and “passive submission”.
• In relation to Tukaram, the High Court did not believe that he had made any attempt
to rape the girl but took complainant’s word for granted in so far as he was alleged to
have fondled her private parts after the act of sexual intercourse by Ganpat. It was in
these premises that the High Court convicted and sentenced the two appellants.

OBSERVATIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT:

Supreme Court observed that “In coming to the conclusion that the consent of the girl was a
case of ‘passive submission’, the High Court mainly relied on the circumstance that at the
relevant time the girl was in the police station where she would feel helpless in the presence
of the two appellants who were persons in authority and whose advances she could hardly
repel all by herself and inferred that her submission to the act of sexual intercourse must be
regarded as the result of fear. This reasoning suffers from two errors.
In the first place, it loses sight of the fact which was admitted by the girl in cross-
examination and which has been thus described in the impugned judgment.
She asserted that after Baburao had recorded her statement before the occurrence, she and
Gama had started to leave the police station and were passing through the front door. While
she was so passing, Ganpat caught her. She stated that she knew the name of accused No. 2
as Ganpat from Head Constable Baburao while giving her report.
She stated that immediately after her hand was caught by Ganpat she cried out. However,
she was not allowed to raise the cry when she was being taken to the latrine but was
prevented from doing so. She stated that she had raised alarm even when her underwear
was loosened at the latrine and also when Ganpat was looking at her private parts with the
aid of a torch.
Her failure to appeal to her companions who were no other than her brother, her aunt and
her lover, and her conduct in meekly following Ganpat appellant and allowing him to have
his way with her to the extent of satisfying his lust in full, makes us feel that the consent in
question was not a consent which could be brushed aside as ‘passive submission’.”

Secondly, it has to be borne in mind that the onus is always on the prosecution to prove
affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and that such onus never
shifts. It was, therefore, incumbent on it to make out that all the ingredients of Section 375
of the Indian Penal Code were present in the case of the sexual intercourse attributed to
Ganpat appellant.
Further, for circumstantial evidence to be used in order to prove an ingredient of an offence,
it has to be such that it leads to no reasonable inference other than that of guilt. We have
already pointed out that the fear which is spoken of is negotiated by the circumstance that
the girl is said to have been taken away by Ganpat right from amongst her near and dear
ones at a point of time when they were all leaving the police station together and were
crossing the entrance gate to emerge out of it. The circumstantial evidence available,
therefore, is not only capable of being construed in a way different from that adopted by the
High Court but actually derogates in no uncertain measure from the inference drawn by it.”
Finally Supreme Court observed that “The only allegation found by the High Court to have
been brought home to Tukaram appellant is that he fondled the private parts of the girl after
Ganpat had left her. The High Court itself has taken note of the fact that in the FIR, the girl
had made against Tukaram serious allegations on which she had gone back at the trial and
the acts covered by which she attributed in her deposition to Ganpat instead. Now if the girl
could alter her position in regard to these serious allegations at will, where is the assurance
that her word is truthful in relation to what she now says about Tukaram. The High Court
appears to have been influenced by the fact that Tukaram was present at the police station
when the incident took place and that he left it after the incident.
This circumstance, in our opinion, is not inculcator and is capable of more explanations than
one.”

FINAL JUDGEMENT:
Supreme Court held that “we conclude that the sexual intercourse in question is not
proved to amount to rape and that no offence is brought home to Ganpat.”
With regard to Tukaram, Court held that “We do not, therefore, propose to take the girl at
her word in relation to Tukaram appellant and hold that the charge remains wholly unproved
against him.”
AFTERMATH THE DECISION:

• After the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, there was public outcry and
protests, which eventually led to THE CRIMINAL LAW (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT,
1983 in which:

• Section 114(A) was added to Evidence Act which states that if the victim says that
she did not consent to the sexual intercourse, the Court shall presume that she did
not consent (rebuttable presumption of law).

• Section 376(A), Section 376(B), Section 376(C), Section 376(D) in IPC were also
added which made custodial rape punishable (which were further amended in 2013
after Nirbhaya Rape Case).

• Besides defining custodial rape, the amendment shifted the burden of proof from the
accuser to the accused once intercourse was established; it also added provisions for
in-camera trials, the prohibition on the victim identity disclosure and tougher
sentences.

Conclusion

The role of media in shaping criminal justice policies is profound and multifaceted. Media
platforms, ranging from traditional newspapers and television to modern digital and social
media, significantly influence public perception, legislative action, and the overall discourse
surrounding crime and justice.
The media often acts as a gatekeeper, determining which issues are brought to public
attention and how they are framed. This gatekeeping role is crucial in shaping public
perception and, consequently, influencing policy decisions. For instance, extensive media
coverage of high-profile criminal cases can lead to public outcry and demands for legislative
changes.
The media also plays a crucial role in advocating for policy reforms and highlighting systemic
issues within the criminal justice system. Investigative journalism, in particular, has been
instrumental in uncovering injustices and prompting policy changes.
For example, the investigative work of journalists in exposing wrongful convictions has led
to the establishment of innocence projects and reforms in forensic practices.
Moral panic theory further explains how media can create a heightened sense of fear and
urgency around specific issues, leading to swift and often severe policy responses. The
media’s role in generating moral panics can be seen in various contexts,
The media’s influence extends beyond individual cases to broader policy issues.
For example, media coverage of crime rates and trends can shape public opinion on the
effectiveness of the criminal justice system and the need for reform.
Studies have shown that media portrayal of crime often emphasizes violent and
sensational incidents, which can lead to a distorted perception of crime rates and an
increased demand for punitive measures
In recent years, social media has emerged as a powerful tool for grassroots movements and
advocacy. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram allow for the rapid dissemination
of information and mobilization of public support.
The #MeToo movement is a prime example of how social media can bring attention to
widespread issues of sexual harassment and assault, leading to significant changes in both
public attitudes and policies.

Media’s Role in Shaping International Criminal Justice Policies

The influence of media is not confined to national borders; it also plays a role in shaping
international criminal justice policies.
Global media coverage of human rights abuses and war crimes can lead to international
pressure and intervention.
The media’s role in highlighting the atrocities in Darfur, for instance, contributed to
international efforts to address the crisis and bring perpetrators to justice.
Citations
https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminal-justice-process/legal-and-ethical-
issues/media-influence-and-legal-ethics/
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003220299/role-media-criminal-
justice-policy?refId=41612fde-2253-4b54-b72a-500d52dcba88&context=ubx
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=15562fa773aff1caJmltdHM9MTcyNjAxMjgwMCZpZ3VpZ
D0zNjZhMGEyZi01MDE5LTZkMGMtMzNhOC0xODljNTExZjZjNDMmaW5zaWQ9NTIwNw&ptn
=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=366a0a2f-5019-6d0c-33a8-
189c511f6c43&psq=media+influence+on+criminal+justice+policy+in+15%2c000+words&u=a
1aHR0cHM6Ly9pamNydC5vcmcvcGFwZXJzL0lKQ1JUMjMwNDIwNC5wZGY&ntb=1
https://www.criminallawaz.com/looking-back-at-the-trial-of-the-century-people-vs-o-j-
simpson/#:~:text=The%20O.J.%20Simpson%20trial%20highlighted%20several%20systemic%
20issues,media%20sensationalism%20on%20public%20perception%20and%20court%20pro
cesses.
https://lawandcrime.com/analysis/oj-simpson-what-impact-did-the-trial-of-the-century-
have-on-domestic-violence-awareness/
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonchron.html#:~:text=October
%203%2C%202008-,O.%20J.,to%2033%20years%20in%20prison.
https://www.aetv.com/real-crime/megans-law-story
https://www.meganslaw.com/index.html
https://www.ijllr.com/post/the-mathura-rape-case-a-critical-analysis
https://lexforti.com/legal-news/mathura-rape-case-landmark-case-which-led-to-the-
criminal-law-second-amendment-in-1983/