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.
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.
The principle of commensurate deserts addresses the question of al- location of punishments that is, how much to punish convicted offenders. This allocation question is distinct from the issue of the general justification of punishment-namely, why the legal organisation of punishment should exist at all. In arguing that the commensu... ... middle of paper ... ...system, for example, these are the type of crime of which the offender is convicted and certain "enhancements" Based on violence or property loss in commission of the present crime and on the prior criminal record. Once one identifies the determinative factors, one can examine whether and to what degree they relate to the seriousness of the criminal conduct (or to the extent and severity of the person’s past criminal record). To the extent those factors are not so related, persons whose criminal offense (and criminal history) are the same can receive unequal sentences.
This type of crime is most like going to sentence the offender to alcohol awareness (AA) classes as a form of punishment, in hopes of rehabilitating the offender to give up alcohol. The Us Correctional System is there to punish offenders and try to rehabilitate them. HOW THE US CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM PUNISHES OFFENDERS The US correctional System punishes offenders based on the type of crime that has been committed. “Upon conviction, an offender will be sentenced. If incarceration is the punishment given, the person convicted will serve time in a local jail, county jail, state prison or federal prison” (1988 Drug Crimes).
As Joe Arpuio states “getting tough on crime,” the tougher retributive punishments are, may again deter crime. Deterrence- Deterrence is the intention to prevent future crimes from taking place, becoming split into two specific types of deterrence, general and specific. General deterrence is “actions that take place to persuade other persons from committing criminal acts” (Couture, 2014, p. 128). While specific deterrence is “punishments aimed at stopping... ... middle of paper ... ...ause it deals with society as a whole. Yes, general deterrence may use certain individuals as an example for society, but if the punishment for that certain individual is strict enough and is able to deter others from society from committing crime it is doing its job.
If South Africa is truly moving towards applying restorative justice principles in the resolution of disputes it will be evident in the legislation and recent case law in different fields; including crimes of child offenders, less serious crimes and serious crimes. 2 Restorative justice versus traditional theories Punishment theories such as retributive and utilitarian approaches focus on ‘righting the wrong’. Retributive theories are based on the idea where the offender can only pay for his ‘sin’ by suffering. Whereas, utilitarian approaches are focused on the legal and moral order, protecting society and potential victims from the offender. This approach also centers on using the deprivation of liberty, pain and suffering to punish current and potential offenders.
Individuals’ who are convicted of particular crimes must be punished in accordance to the Mandatory minimums laws which state that at least the minimum sentence is required. This law weakens the Criminal Justice System in many ways. The law prevents judges from fitting the punishment and or sentence according to the individual and the circumstances of the crime committed. Due to the law’s limitation to the discretion of judges, federal and state prisons are overcrowding at the cost of taxpayers. Before this law, general sentencing of a convicted individual was decided by a judge after the individual has plead guilty or if found guilty in trial.
1) How does the correction system punish offenders? 2) How does the correction system rehabilitate offenders? 3) Which method is more effective in reducing crime? How we, as people of the court, punish criminals depends on the circumstances of the individual case. Crimes of a state level are prosecuted by the State District Attorney because they are considered offences against society.
Capital crimes are any crimes that would be sentenced to death as a punishment with either no trial or a very quick trial. The top 3 capital crimes that occurred in this Era were Piracy the act of stealing at sea, second is setting fire to a arsenal or a dock, and finally murder of any one. The most common crimes that were serious but not serious to be considered as a capital crime were public riots, Robberies that ended up assaulting another individually physically, abduction of kids for their clothes ,and finally poaching in rural and urban England(Mitchell). Capital crimes would either be sentenced to a short term imprisonment or fine to the person that had done the crime. Crimes occurring during the Victorian Era can be seen happening now, even the names of the categories used to categorize the crimes are still used to label the crimes today .Crimes that were going on during the Queen Victorian era were classified in to two categories(Mitchell).
The theory of deterrence aims to prevent offenders from repeating the crime that they have been convicted of. Sanctions wit... ... middle of paper ... ...e and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence that has been committed. That each case should be judged on the individual aggravating and mitigating factors associated with the offence and on the other individual details of the offence. The circumstances of the offender and the harm caused to the victim of the offence or to the community should have an impact on the severity of the punishment that the offender will receive. It is therefore accurate to say that punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.