When stepping into freedom, fairness may be in short supply
Local
television coverage of the release of a prisoner this week really hit a sore
spot for me. I am in a unique position to make some comments about the coverage
from two perspectives. Number one, I am a broadcast journalist. I no longer
cover the news, but I was a member of the Radio-Television News Directors
Association for over 25 years, and I won that association’s highest national
award for editorial writing. And number two, I am a prisoner advocate. The
agency that I founded is working with thousands of Michigan prisoners, and to
claim that we have little understanding of prisoner issues would be a serious miscalculation.
Here's what
happened.
A woman was
released from prison who, with a partner, committed a heinous crime over 30 years
ago. No one challenges the seriousness of the crime, or the extent of pain for
all affiliated with the victims.
The Michigan
Parole Board did not make light of this case. In fact, the board denied parole
for this inmate time and again. Finally, board members felt that she could be
released into society without reoffending.
Both Channel
8 and Channel 13 covered the story of her release this week, with ominous
quotes from victims and the police, asserting that she will reoffend.
From a
newsman’s point of view, here’s my beef: These TV stations have the right to
editorialize all they want, and if they want to express an opinion that this
woman is a danger to society, they should go for it. BUT, when covering
a story, it’s important to get BOTH sides. It would be very simple, for
example, to also obtain the Michigan Parole Board’s success rate, and the recidivism
rate of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Both are quite positive.
From a
prisoner advocate’s point of view, I and my team have seen rehabilitation work.
Prisoner Policy Initiative, an agency that grades parole systems, contends that “Survivors
of violent crimes should not be allowed to be a part of the parole-decision
process. The parole process should be about judging transformation, but
survivors have little evidence as to whether an individual has changed, having
not seen them for years.”
Citizens
United for Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE), which also rates parole boards,
has been insisting for years that the “’nature of the crime or seriousness
of the offense should NOT be the reason for parole denial.”
Maybe this
woman will reoffend. That will certainly give the TV stations an opportunity to
gloat “We told you so!”
I hope she
makes it. It won’t be easy. For every person released from prison after many
years, it’s an uphill struggle. Compassion and assistance are often in short
supply when needed the most. What that person really needs is an overdose of
help and encouragement.
Invasive,
one-sided media coverage doesn’t fall into that category.
Comments