The Penalties and Sentences Act of 1994, governs every aspect of Queensland’s sentencing process and is one of our most important pieces of legislation; implementing a completely impartial justice sentencing system. This act attempts to establish a balance between punishments and positive outcomes for all the key stakeholders, but has come under scrutiny of recent times for supposedly being “soft on crime” (Judicial Conference of Australia, 2014). A considerable number of Queenslanders believe however, that the current legislation can also be inconsistent and weak; this debate has grabbed the attention of people in other Australians jurisdictions. They argue however, the best way to deter and reduce crime is a judicially ‘tailored’ process of sentencing, balancing positive outcomes for the victims and the community with what is appropriate for the convicted individual. Because of this the Discretionary provisions should not be diminished or removed. If this system of discretionary sentencing is reduced or abolished completely there will be no benefit for any stakeholder and in fact the ridiculously harsh and unjust substitute of mandatory sentencing would create injustice.
The Penalties and Sentences Act of 1994 is the current legislation relevant to sentencing in Queensland. Without it, there wouldn’t be any consideration of mitigating or aggravating factors, nor would offenders be punishable to an extent or way that is in accordance of any circumstances (USQ Australia, 2014 – Penalties and Sentences Act 1992). The Penalties and Sentences Act clearly states, 9.1) “The only purpose for which sentences may be imposed on an offender are – a) to punish the offender to an extent or in a way that is just in all the circumstances” (Qu...
... middle of paper ...
... University of Melbourne, (2013). The High Court on Mandatory Sentencing in Magaming v The Queen: Only Part of the Story. [online] Available at: http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2013/11/13/dziedzic-walker-magaming/ [Accessed 2 Jun. 2014].
18. USQ Australia, (2008). Overview Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. [online] Available at: https://elo.legalaid.qld.gov.au/webdocs/dbtextdocs/internal/irregseries/cle/2008/penaltiesoverview.pdf [Accessed 2 Jun. 2014].
19. World Socialist Web Site, (2000). Public outcry in Australia over jailed Aboriginal boy's suicide. [online] Available at: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/02/jail-f19.html [Accessed 29 May. 2014].
20. Youth Studies Australia, (2000). 10 Arguments Against Mandatory Sentencing. [online] Available at: http://www.acys.info/ysa/issues/v.19_n.2_2000/p22_-_R._White_-_June_2000.pdf [Accessed 2 Jun. 2014].
A sentencing and punishment issue may arise in criminal procedure when two different people are given two different penalties. The judge in the District Court stated that Mr Nika should not be extended leniency because he had prior convictions. It was also noted that Mr Boka and the applicant should not be extended leniency because they had prior similar offending in Victoria for which they were not yet dealt with. Different judges pass different judgements based on their interpretation of the
What would the criminal justice system be without punishment? Perhaps, the criminal justice system would not serve a function or cease to exist. Punishment is one of the main facets of the criminal justice system. It holds such significance that it even reflects the beliefs and values of a particular society. Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) once said “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” (Pollock, 2010: 315). Punishment has been around since the beginning of civilization. With its rich history, the concept of punishment has been analyzed by some of the most renowned theorists, some of which include Jeremy Bentham, Cesare Beccaria, Adolphe Quetelet and André-Michel Guerry (Pollock, 2010: 318). Once found guilty of an offense the type of punishment must be determined. There are many different rationales used to answer why it is necessary to inflict punishment. Rationales for punishment include retribution, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. To better understand these rationales ethical systems such as utilitarianism, ethical formalism and ethics of care can be used. The general public should be knowledgeable about punishment, even more so should professionals in the criminal justice field because they are directly linked to it in some way.
There are differences between state and federal sentencing guidelines. The federal guidelines are very vast and complicated (Leonard-Kempf and Sample 2001 p.113). These guidelines have been amended many times over the course of the past 25 years. According to Gazal-Ayal, Turjeman and Fishman (2013 p. 131) judges have historically had the weight and responsibility to sentence criminals in the way that they see fit. Some judges have abused this responsibility leading to the creation of sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Reform Act was passed in 1984 in order to place strict guidelines on the judge’s discretion during sentencing (Rehavi and Starr 2013 p. 11). The United States Sentencing Committee wanted to keep the judge’s personal opinions and beliefs separate from the courtroom in order to create fair sentences. The creation of sentencing guidelines keeps people involved in the sentencing process in check.
The gross over representation of indigenous people in the Australian criminal justice system (CJS) is so disturbingly evident that it is never the source of debate. Rather it is the starting point of discussions centring on the source and solutions to this prominent social, cultural and political issue. Discourse surrounds not only the economic and social disadvantage of indigenous communities, but also the systemic racism and continuing intergenerational trauma resulting for the unjust colonisation of a nation which has profited whites at the detriment to indigenous people throughout history. In respect to the currently CJS, trepidations are raised by indigenous communities around the lack of culturally diverse laws and punishments within the system. The overtly western system does not provide a viable space for indigenous
In a modern Western society where there is significant amount of research done of rehabilitation and criminal justice reform, the practice of sentencing JLWOP (Juvenile Life Without Parole) seems outdated and primitive. There are a number of prominent human rights groups that advocate for the banning of the LWOP sentence for juvenile offenders. In his 2010 article for the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation titled ‘Extinguishing All Hope: Life-Without-Parole for Juveniles,’ Frank Butler breaks down the ethical arguments against the sentence from a social policy perspective. He uses a number of pertinent facts and dates to support and enhance his argument, but retains a clear and concise presentation style, making the document easy to read and comprehend on an analytical level. It is clear from his title that it is not an objective piece, but his opinion is supporte...
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
Parole and mandatory minimum sentences are both controversial topics within the criminal justice system. “…to many Canadians, parole is the very definition of justice gone soft.” (Fine, 2016). Where mandatory minimums are more heavily supported by the community parole is often criticized. This is unjust because the adverse effects of a sentence without some type of reintegration back into society can be extremely harmful to the inmate and the community. “Parole is the system’s way of taking a calculated risk. Why take any risk at all? Because the alternative is seen to be worse: No incentive for good behaviour.”(Fine, 2016). This distrust in the parole system leads the public to support the idea of mandatory minimum sentences in the case of
It is often believed that arrest and its subsequent steps are a greater deterrent than the severity of the punishment itself. A typical one-year sentence has now been increased to a five-year sentence based on these mandatory sentencing laws. Those extra four years, in turn, inflict continued pain. The emotional and physical toll of being behind bars can change ones whole life and even take away time they will never have back. Mandatory sentencing recently dictated that a teenager serve 15 years behind bars for selling drugs to a undercover. Is this really justice? A teenager being sentenced for a term that some murderers get? This can be the beginning of the end for their life. [5] In addition, mandatory minimum sentencing laws can turn the typical low-level offender into a more dangerous criminal. While the low-level offender may have been incarcerated at first only for drugs, after additional years in jail they may learn new skills that will cause them to become more dangerous to the public on their
Society has long since operated on a system of reward and punishment. That is, when good deeds are done or a person behaves in a desired way they SP are rewarded, or conversely punished when behaviour does not meet the societal norms. Those who defy these norms and commit crime are often punished by organized governmental justice systems through the use of penitentiaries, where prisoners carry out their sentences. The main goals of sentencing include deterrence, safety of the public, retribution, rehabilitation, punishment and respect for the law (Government of Canada, 2013). However, the type of justice system in place within a state or country greatly influences the aims and mandates of prisons and in turn targets different aspects of sentencing goals. Justice systems commonly focus on either rehabilitative or retributive measures.
Sentencing models are plans or strategies developed for imposing punishment for crimes committed. During the 19th century these punishments were normally probation, fines and flat sentences. When someone was given a flat sentence, he or she had to serve the entire sentence without parole or early release. However, by the end of the 19th century the new models were developed. These new models include indeterminate, determinate, advisory/voluntary guidelines, presumptive and mandatory minimum sentencing (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011).
There are four sources of Law in the Australian Legal System. They are Statute Law, which is made in Parliament, Common Law and the Law of E...
Punishment occurs to individuals who break the law. It is also used to maintain the level of crime and to protect community members in Australia. To determine that society is content with maintaining the crime rate, this essay will discuss punishment types given to offenders and how society justifies the use punishment. Additionally, providing a brief overview of the community correction and prions rates to show that communities prefer to incarcerate lawbreakers. Highlighting that crime rates are being maintained by looking at the personal crime rate for assault before concluding that Australian society feel safe enough to allow the criminal justice system to sustain the crime rate.
“Punitive sentencing appears to meaningfully reduce crime and re-imprisonment rates for sever offences” (Shaw, 2011). If we increase sentences it will prevent crime because people do not want to spend so much of their life behind bars. It will also help with crime decreasing because once a criminal has committed a crime and has been caught they will spend longer time in jail. This will have them off the streets longer, preventing them from committing crimes, as well as it will give them more time to reflect about their decisions and have a look into their future and see where they what to be, instead of where they are now. “Offenders experience maturation while incarcerated, and older offenders are less likely to re-offend” (Shaw, 2011). Longer sentencing will give criminals time to mature, reflecting on t...
Mauer, Marc. "The Race to Incarcerate." The Case For Penal Abolition. Ed. W. Gordon West and Ruth Morris. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars? Press, 2000. 89-99.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,