A recent sentence imposed in the Tasmanian Supreme Court aimed at punishing an offender is the case of Michael Robert Keeling v State of Tasmania in which the judge needed to balance the need to punish the offender and the need to deter him and others from such conduct while keeping the best interests of the community in mind. Deterrent sentences are aimed at deterring not only the offender from further offences but also potential offenders. Specific deterrence is concerned with punishing an offender in the expectation they will not offend again whereas general deterrence is related to the possibility that people in general will be deterred from committing crime by the threat of punishment. An example of ... ... middle of paper ... ...ystem and are seen as a credible sentencing option because of the restorative and rehabilitative effect it has on offenders by allowing them the opportunity to give something back to the community and providing them with education and work experience. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that rehabilitation is neither an effective or non-effective sanction.
The final method I would incorporate into the triangulation method of collecting data is historical data. Just like official statistics, historical data will allow a criminologist to gain a better sense of the crime rate of Aboriginal individuals over various periods of time. However, just like official statistics, the historical data method also has its drawbacks in the fact that the records could be inaccurate. Another drawback of historical data is that due to police discretion, some crimes are not reported. Every time a crime is committed and not reported is becomes a dark figure of crime.
This type of legislation’s general purpose is to provide a mechanism whereby prisoners who, if released pose an unacceptable risk of committing further serious offences, may be detained where it is deemed appropriate to do so for the protection of the community (Field, 2003). The most recent of these being the Queensland Government’s passing of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. Similar laws were introduced in New South Wales in 1994, however they were ultimately ruled invalid by the High Court. Prior to this in 1991 Victoria enacted legislation known as the Community Protection Act 1990, which allowed for the continued detention of one prisoner known as Garry David. Whilst this Act applied to no one else the Victorian Government attempted to broaden the legislation with Draft Bill proposals which ultimately lapse in the face of wide ranging criticism from lawyer, psychiatrists and academics.
Why might it be necessary to agree on a definition of crime in Australia? If not, why not? The term ‘crime’ holds great importance and is used widely, yet has no settled meaning. It is often defined vaguely and insufficiently, thereby having a deceiving and unhelpful effect in the many contexts in which it is used. It would be necessary to agree on a definition of crime in Australia so everyone is held accountable to a set standard of laws and rules as it makes it fair for every citizen otherwise the rules would differ for each supposed crime.
With all legal reasoning there must also be a backing from the people, whether it be culturally or the humanity of society itself. With consideration of Friedman 's perception of crime my brothers actions would be considered a crime. My brother caused me actual physical harm. If we follow Friedman’s perception then we see two possible circumstances. First being that physically assaulting someone is against an actual law and can be punished by a court of law.
Common to all criminal courts within Australia, our court system operates on an adversarial system. Within the court a prosecutor represents the crown and a defence representative represents an accused with both parties arguing their side of the case. Sworden (2006) identifies the adversarial system as a process which allows the truth of the matter to be determined. Using evidence, the opposing councils attempt to convince a jury their version of events is true. If the prosecutor convinces the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” then the accused is found guilty of the crime.
But there is no telling if the Federal Sentencing Guidelines can accurately sentence defendants because every criminal is different. It is not true that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are perfect in respect to the criminal his or herself. The guidelines should not just judge defendants solely on their crime and their criminal record. Focusing cooperatively on the offender, not just the crime will immensely help the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to precisely sentence criminals. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines ought to consider the defendants’ character as much as they reflect on the uniqueness of the offense and the history of the defendant.
The issue of abuse of power and corruption is also shown with the politics of law enforcement. It shows the extent to which the Australian system of criminal justice conforms to our liberal democratic views of fairness, openness, accountability and efficiency. The discrepancy between the police image and police practice is shown by the act police put on in certain situations. Another issue is the paperwork load carried by the police officers and the effects that this has on their attitudes towards their work. The attitudes of male and female members of the police force towards alleged victims of rape is another issue which Scales OF justice rises in its portrayal of a corrupt police force.
Lowitja O'Donoghue, who formerly chaired the government's Aboriginal affairs body ATSIC, believes that Australian law should be more aggressive in such cases. Some aspects of Aboriginal law are falling out of practice. Chris Sidoti believes that whatever balance is struck will be as distinct from traditional European law as it is from traditional Aboriginal law. "For traditional people, being put in jail is more inhuman than spearing, and any unified law would have to recognise that. Aboriginal Customary Law The High Court did, however, conclude in that case (a conclusion confirmed in WA v Commonwealth, Wororra Peoples v WA and Teddy Biljabu and others v WA, High Court, March 16 1995) that some Aboriginal land law (that which attracted the status of 'native title') survived the colonisation process.
Police discretion is the power to make a decision on a police officer’s own judgement. These decisions can range from how serious they think a domestic violence complaint is or if they should pursue a minor offence such as racism toward themselves. The ability to make decisions like these leaves a clear indicator as to why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are over represented in the Australian criminal justice system. Many factors related to discretionary decision making are responsible for this representation. Firstly the history of Indigenous Australians in relation to white Australians must be understood, how decisions that were made 200 years ago are still felt by their community.