Crime coverage colored by class and odd perceptions

Ignas Kleden, Sociologist, The Center for East Indonesian Affairs/CEIA, Jakarta

Public perception and understanding of crime are constituted, to a certain extent, by the way in which crimes are and are not labeled. The role of labeling and naming things is perhaps much more instrumental to peoples' perceptions than it is generally believed. If you call a particular behavior criminal, people tend to believe it to be, whereas if you call it a case of law it will be perceived as a legal matter.

The act of labeling ongoing affairs publicly is carried out mainly by our media, by means of headlines or the sections where the report is presented. One can imagine the difficulties faced by the editors in doing this. They have to take the presumption of innocence into account in order not to get unwittingly into trial by the press. They also have to bring into relief the most interesting aspect of an alleged crime and try to name it accordingly.

However, if one looks carefully at the way in which we categorize crimes, it soon appears that the reporting of crime by our media indicates some unique patterns which unfortunately do not always help improve our understanding and our judgment as to what is a crime and what is not. There are some inclinations which might contain unconscious political prejudice or class bias.

Crime has a lot to do with the legal definitions in our criminal law. The point here is whether or not crime is normally attributed to a certain social class, whereas the same transgressions which are committed by white collar people are put by our media in much more neutral categories such as "national", "law" or "economy and business".

Some argue that the involvement of Golkar Party Chairman and Speaker of the legislature, Akbar Tandjung, in the abuse of Rp 40 billion, entails many aspects of this problem.

The media should attempt to bring one aspect or another into relief in order to take as many linkages of the problem as possible into account, while trying to make it properly newsworthy. The press is obliged to do justice to the matter and the person concerned. This is why the report about Akbar's case is sometimes put in the "national" or "law" pages and not on the "crime" page.

Another question might arise as to why the same linkages of the problem are not taken into consideration if it concerns the transgressions of the commoners, those outside the circle of white collar relations, such as peasants, factory workers, bus drivers, street vendors or regular employees.

It should be assumed that there might be substantial reasons for this different treatment. But alas, why is the taking of sandals or shoes from a factory in Tangerang so easily labeled as theft, whereas absconding with public money by white collar criminals, which caused a state budget deficit of Rp 34 trillion is reported in the "economy and business" pages?

Why on earth is the case of the missing sandals not reported as a case of "poverty" or "will to survive" for that matter?

I am just trying to show that there might be a conscious or unconscious discriminatory treatment and biased perception of crime according to social class.

It is sometimes difficult to understand why the sale of illicit narcotics among prisoners in a Bekasi jail is reported in the "crime" section, whereas the report about Ang Kim Soei who has been sentenced to death is put under "law."

Newspaper readers know that Ang Kim Soei was on trial because he was charged with operating two ecstasy factories in Tangerang, Banten. He was arrested on April 6, 2002, at the Borobudur Hotel in Jakarta, with 155,300 grams of ecstasy powder and 8,410 ecstasy tablets which were ready for sale.

Why is the sale of drugs among the prisoners reported as an act of blatant crime, whereas the death penalty of someone who produced drugs in two factories is reported as a matter of legal affairs?

Why is Ang Kim Soei not called a super-criminal in the heading of the report? And what about the tycoon Sjamsul Nursalim whose debt is reported as amounting to Rp 48.2 trillion, which is more than enough to cover the deficit of the state budget amounting to Rp 34 trillion in 2003? (Tempo, Jan. 26).

And yet, his behavior which obviously abuses public money is reported "beautifully" under "economy and business".

It seems that some social "deviant" behavior can be easily identified as crime such as the killing of innocent people. But what about the killing of people because of political motivations? Can this act be identified as crime or it should be treated as a case of political, national or legal affairs?

Also, who else is supposedly a thief? What is the difference between the lifting of some sandals from one's workplace and the embezzlement of Rp. 48.2 trillion of public money as far as it concerns the nature of theft? Why name it differently?

Given this complication, we should be very cautious in order that the presumption of innocence principle can be applied to everybody without discrimination.

There is a tendency for the wealthy to receive, perhaps unwarranted protection, against criminalization, while the poor are easily characterized as criminals.

This problem becomes all the more urgent now in Jakarta owing to the latest political developments, in which two big political decisions coincide. On the one hand, those who turn out to have huge amounts of debt to the state due to abuse of money and non- performing loans can enjoy the "release and discharge" policy provided by the government of President Megawati Soekarnoputri.

Yet the request of six convicts on death row for a pardon has been rejected by the President.

In the pro and con debate about capital punishment, those who stand for it argue that this kind of punishment can be accepted as an effective means to deter drug dealers and to prevent other people from committing the same crime.

That is fair enough, but Indonesian society is suffering not only from illegal drugs, but also from social and mental narcotics such as corruption. It may be possible one day to imagine that a big corruptor could be executed, so that capital punishment can deter corruption -- which still continues with striking impunity.