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.
In simple terms no. It removes basic human rights such as the Common Law belief of innocent until proven guilty, it also takes away the adversarial nature of our justice system and replaces it with the possibility of arbitrary imprisonment (NSW Law Commission, 2004). This type of legislation also fails to adequately balance the goals of Imprisonment instead focuses on the punitive goals and contradicts the goal of rehabilitation. People detained under this legislation can be forgiven for arguing that they are being punished over and over again for their crimes whilst some offenders get to serve their time and move on with their lives. Unfortunately the very principle of the legislation is to detain offenders until they are no longer a risk, when in reality the risk of re-offending could escalate because of the powerful feeling of injustice created by the legislation.
Nevertheless, this sentence is still carried out and reserved for the worst labeled form of crime, murder. Capital punishment should be out lawed in the United States of America because it violates the constitution, it is compiled of flaws making the process assisting in creating this inhumane process, and does not help control crime, lower crime rates, and hurt the economy. The eighth amendment states that in America, cruel or unusual forms of punishment shall not be placed on any person. Any punishment declared disproportionately harsh will be overturned on appeal (“8th+Amendment”). The main question is, what is considered inhumane or cruel?
Whether or not someone is a criminal, the individual is still a human being, which is what Kant fails to recognize. In conclusion, from examining the two articles we can see Kant’s doctrine on crime, punishment, and justice. After a critique of Kant’s perspective, it is shown how Kant’s forms of punishment are a violation of humanity. I believe that capital punishment is a way for society to dispose their unwanted criminals I believe that it is uncivil and inhumane to kill someone regardless of the reason and to physically make them suffer. As humans we should all be given a second chance to correct our mistakes rather than stigmatizing individuals and taking ones fate into our own hands.
Similarly there are several initiation practices under the the customary law that constitute criminal offence. Some scholars have proposed to make the traditional punishments of the aboriginal people as lawful under the Australian legal system but there are an equal number of critics for the proposal as well. They say that it should be on case to case basis rather making every provision of customary law legal. (Aboriginal Law& criminal justice,Law Reform Commission,W.Australia) There are several inconsistencies between the aboriginal law and the australian law, for e.g. if a person commits a crime governed under the australian law then in that case he will be liable to punishment but if an aboriginal person violates both the customary law and australian law then in that case he will be liable to be punished under both laws or in effect getting double punishment for a sin... ... middle of paper ... ...ed through the decisions of the Court whereas, the statutory law is made by the commonwealth parliament and various state parliaments.
To others, it refers to a policing strategy carefully designed to combat the crime problems of a specific locality (Australian Institute of Criminology 1999, 1). The purpose of this report is to provide a critical analysis of both the strengths and the weaknesses that the zero tolerance policing model has. This is done by presenting the strengths – targeting minor offences reduces the rate of serious crimes; zero tolerance policing prevents police officer discretion and how the concentration of police power into ‘hot spots’ reduces crime rates. As well as this weaknesses of zero tolerance policing is also discussed – implementing zero tolerance policing is costly; increased police power can affect their relationship with the public and racial and ethical minority groups are targeted under zero tolerance policing. In order to judge the effectiveness of zero tolerance policing, it is important that both its strengths and weaknesses are taken into consideration.
Executions today are used in only extreme cases where the individual is harmful to them self and society. Unfit society members such as Timothy McVay, who was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, should allowed back onto the streets, nor should we use the taxpayers’ dollar to sentence them to life imprisonment. The proper justice for such offenders is clearly capital punishment. Capital punishment brings justice to the victims’ families and to the members of society whom were affected by the criminals actions in a humane yet permanent way. For these reasons of justice and societal order capital punishment does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Ernest van den Hagg, in his article “On Deterrence and the Death Penalty” mentions, “One abstains from dangerous acts because of vague, inchoate, habitual and, above all preconscious fears” (193). Without this type of deterrence what would stop criminals that already in prisons for life keep from killing another inmate or a staff that works there? There are those that are against the death penalty called anti-death penalty advocates, they say that imprisonment by it self is enough to deter criminals, killing criminals is not needed! Hugo Bedau argues in his article, “Capital Punishment and Social defense” says, “Crimes can be deterred only by making would-be criminals frightened of being arrested, convicted, and punished for crimes” (301). According to Richard Seiter in his book “An Introduction Corrections” states that “From 1986 to 1997 the number of males that went to prison increased 70% while the number of females increased 118%” (210).
Topic 4: Felton (1997) argues "Future crime policies are likely to turn away from incarceration and towards prevention". Using your understanding of criminology and the reasons why people commit crime; provide a recommendation on what action you think the government should take to prevent crime in Queensland. Speculation has been raised about whether incarceration is effective for criminal offenders. When an offender goes against the law, it has been argued that they must take a 'social debt'. Therefore, they are sent to prison to protect the public community, and to be punished.
Capital Punishment Speech Capital punishment is a barbarous survival from a less enlightened and refined age; it is incongruous and incompatible with our present standard of civilization and humanity. It has been abolished by many states and countries, and we must look forward to the day when the other governments will follow suit. The arguments against capital punishment are many and credible, but the pleas advanced in its favor are few and unfounded. Punishment is supposed to be for the protection of society, and for the reformation and rehabilitation of the wrongdoer. Its purpose is to protect society by preventing the same criminals from repeating their crimes, and by acting as a deterrent to other prospective criminals.