Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The australian criminal justice system essay
The australian criminal justice system essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The New South Wales Criminal trial and sentencing process is adequate in balancing the rights of the victims, offenders and society however like any legal system is does have its faults. The options in the trial and sentencing process are stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the Crimes (Sentencing Legislation) Amendment (Intensive Correction Orders) Act 2010 and the Crimes (sentencing procedure) Act 1999 which features the use of charge negotiation, rehabilitation, mitigating factors and intensive corrective orders. In the criminal trial process charge negotiation provides the offender a choice to plead guilty or not-guilty, which is encouraged by the NSW DPP and is mentioned under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 – Section 99. Charge negotiation usually involves receiving a lesser charge in exchange for a higher charge being withdrawn or could lessen the sentence. In the R v Perry [2011] the offender pleads guilty early in the case; which had effectively showed her remorse, her acceptance of responsibility for the crime and had saved the courts time and the costs that are involved in criminal trial cases; the victim Mr Gibson has been noted to after hearing the evidence and her plea the victim had conveyed to the crown that he had believed Ms Perry’s remorse was true and that he desired for her not to suffer lifelong consequences for the accident. With expenditure on criminal courts’ administration being roughly $570 million in the 2006-2007 year, with increasing numbers of offenders pleading guilty in the first instance the cost for criminal proceedings annually should slowly decrease therefore resulting in money being used in other avenues which would be more beneficial for the community. Having this option provides positive outcomes for all affected; the offender is in most cases rewarded for not wasting the courts time which can alter their sentence or
This is offered to provide an incentive for “good behaviour” and ultimately rehabilitation during a sentence. The granting and restriction of parole is outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and allows those with sentences of more than three years to be released after they have served their minimum sentences. The encouragement of rehabilitation upholds the rights of the community and offender, as the offender’s rights are not undermined by through excessively restricting their freedoms and the reintroduction of the rehabilitated offender into society minimises the threat of reoffending. However, the reward of parole for some offenders has resulted in community dissatisfaction. The Age article “Adrian Bayley should not have been on parole” represents a social concern regarding the leniency of parole for violent sexual offenders. The release of the evidently non-rehabilitated offender resulted in a breach of parole and the sexual assault and murder of Jill Meagher, a 29 year old Melbournian woman. As a result of the injustice of the lenient decision and subsequent community retaliation, new parole laws were introduced in Victoria during 2014. This legislation is outlined in the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Act 2014, and the penalty for breaching parole includes up to three months jail and/or a $4200 fine. Thus, there is greater justice for the victim and especially the community through the discouragement of crime for offenders who may not be rehabilitated and are released on
Punishment, when speaking on serious terms, is socially valuable because it deters criminals from repeating their crimes and may keep others from repeating the same acts. If in fact the deterring effect misses its point, it is the fault of the justice system the all the red tape found behind it. At its current standing, the system is viewed as a joke because no authority is taken, no one believes, let alone fears, the system. Both the lengthy time and the high expense result from innumerable appeals, including many technicalities which have little nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence. If these wasteless amount of appeals were eliminated or at least controlled, then the procedure would be much shorter, less expensive and more
Human rights are rights that can be claimed by all human beings, no matter what nationality, place of residence, national or ethnic background, gender, colour of their skin, religion and beliefs or any other statues. All humans are equally entitled to human rights without any discrimination. The human rights that are listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights were created so that humans could live harmoniously and peacefully with each other by promoting and protecting them through their rights.
Law is a system of rules that has been set up by the legislative branch of our government. It is a must that every person in that country follow these laws, or severe consequences will be held against that person. In every court house legal systems are held. There are two common types of legal systems used, common law and civil law. Common law is used by countries that are from the British colonies, as this type of system was originated from England, when King Henry II wanted to combine the laws and customs together. Whereas, the countries that use civil law are from the European colonies (Common Law vs Civil Law,2009). Even though, both laws are commonly used, they differ in terms of the constitution, the jury’s opinion, the role of the
In the discussion of legal philosophy there is the ever occurring question “what is law”, many legal philosophers have attempted to answer such question but I believe the one philosopher to change the field entirely was John Austin. John Austion was the first modern legal positivist (and possibly founding father) to present a contemporary theory of law. Austin’s main interest in the philosophy of law was differentiating the reality of the law from the normative or moral merit of law. This in sense is scientific approach because positivism is an empirical approach to philosophy, which extends it use to the scientific method and other fields. None the less my goal here is not to present an all-out account of Austin but to present a comprehensive evaluation of legal positivism and present the issues I have found prominent in legal validity, whether it be with Hart, Austin any other theorist. However I feel it may be necessary to start with the earliest theorist on the subject John Austin.
In every criminal court hearing there are two sides to a case which are the prosecution and the defence. A defence comes in two forms which is a complete defence or a partial defence. A criminal defence is a strategic debate that is used in our court systems to defeat a criminal charge. A criminal defence attempts to challenge the legitimacy and sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence (Types of criminal defences, 2014). Consequently there is five classification of defences such as denial, procedural, exoneration, excuse and justification defences.
Punishment is the cost to individuals those who break the law. It is used to manage and protect Australian communities from crime. This essay discusses punishments and how society justifies the use of punishment. Included is a brief overview of community correction and prison rates showing that communities preference for incarceration of offenders. Detailing personal assault rates, the essay emphasises that crime rates are being managed and concludes Australian communities feel safer with criminal justice system continued use of punishment as a deterrent.
The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.
Lawyers function mutually as both advocates and advisers. As advocates, they embody their clients in court by providing supportive evidence. As advisers, they advise their clients on their legal rights and obligations. Lawyers (also known as attorneys and counselors) can interpret laws and are to apply these laws to a specific situation.
Integrity is the focal point of Dworkin's philosophy of law. For Dworkin, law as integrity is the best conception that best fits the concept of law.[ See Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire, (Hart Publishing, 2006), p 90 for a distinction between concepts and conceptions.] To word it in another manner, Dworkin's theory of law as integrity best justifies the legal practice. At this point, I would postulate that it is through an understanding of the reason behind Dworkin's assertion of law as integrity being the best theory that justifies the legal practice, that we would come to an understanding of the role of integrity and how it would assist judges in hard cases. Dworkin asserts that the fundamental point of law is to "guide and constrain the powers of government"[ Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire, (Hart Publishing, 2006), p 93.], and that the best theory of law is one that best justifies the use of coercion by the government. The conception of law as integrity seeks to explain the legal practice in light of this principle. It should be noted that the term government is defined widely to include the political and legal institutions as a whole. In our context, we are to assess how law as integrity justifies the use of coercion by the judiciary, for they do possess coercive functions, like the imposition of a prison sentence or a fine, and how they are to utilise these coercive powers, especially in hard cases.
The American legal system today is filled with corruption and untold truths compared to the European system. To understand how the American legal system is flawed, you will need to understand how both systems work. Both systems have a common law, which means that most laws are decided by legislators, but some laws are based on customs. The United States court system is based on the principle of precedent. For example, if a court has made a ruling on a similar case to the case they are presiding over then he or she has to respect the earlier ruling, with some exemptions (Henderson). This leaves a lot of room for suspicious activities because you only have to slip it past the courts once and it is final.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.
Legal realism defines legal rights and duties as whatever the court says they are. Out of all the legal theories we have examined in class, I personally believe that this is the one that best exemplifies the purpose of law and would best suit and benefit society. The Dimensions of Law textbook defines legal realism as “the school of legal philosophy that examines law in a realistic rather than theoretical fashion; the belief that law is determined by what actually happens in court as judges interpret and apply law.”
Law is one of the most important elements that transform humans from mere beasts into intelligent and special beings. Law tells us what is right and wrong and how we, humans, should act to achieve a peaceful society while enjoying individual freedoms. The key to a successful nation is a firm, strong, and fair code of high laws that provides equal and just freedom to all citizens of the country. A strong government is as important as a firm code of law as a government is a backbone of a country and of the laws. A government is a system that executes and determines its laws. As much as fair laws are important, a capable government that will not go corrupt and provide fair services holds a vital role in building and maintaining a strong country.
Should the aim of law be primarily focused on the protection of individual liberty or, instead, the normative goals aimed at the good of the society? The question of law and morality is difficult mainly because it needs to be addressed with current social conditions that exist, the morals and values that the particular society has. In general, the laws in any society should not only be focused on regulations, but it should also protect individual’s liberty. Devlin debate was based on deciding whether law should enforce morality. He debated about what the law ought to be and whether morality should be enforced by law to form a good society. Furthermore, John Stewart Mill did not write specifically on law and morality. His argument constituted mainly on the anti-enforcers side of law and morality because he believed in individual liberty. John Stuart Mill's assertion that the only justification for limiting one person's liberty is to prevent harm to another