Access To Law

In this essay I will examine the development of Australian society and subsequent rights given to Australian citizens, thus addressing the guiding question as quoted at the top of the paper.

In the novel Jasper Jones by Craig Silvey it is revealed that justice and the law are not the same things. The law can be defined as a set of rules and regulations to be followed and justice can be defined as just behaviour or treatment. The law is meant to ensure that justice is always present but this is not always the case as seen in Jasper Jones. In the novel, the law is not used for justice but is rather used for prejudice, in order for characters of the novel to find justice they must do so outside of the law and to find justice you have to take the law into your own hands.

It is a commonly known issue in Australia that as a minority group, the people of Indigenous Australian ethnicity have always been treated, or at least perceived, differently to those of non-Indigenous disposition. This can be applied to different contexts such as social, economic, education, or in relation to this essay – legal contexts. Generally, Indigenous Australians face issues such as less opportunity for formal education, less access to sufficient income, more health issues, and higher rates of imprisonment (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since 1945 with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about a change from oppression to equality. Unfortunately on the other hand, some rights and freedoms have not improved at all or have even worsened.

Thirdly, he examines how social structures and legal systems are working, and how nothing is as fair as it is meant to be. Through these examples, he analyses, describes, and presents these ideas under the surface

In today's Australia the price of handling a substantial litigation matter is unobtainable for the average Australian, justice does indeed go to the highest bidder and “Unless you are a millionaire or a pauper, the cost of going to court to protect your rights is beyond you.” George Brandis, shadow attorney-general. To say that justice is earned and reserved for the population of Australia is a myth and it is true that legal aid community centres are grossly underfunded and explicitly for those in dire need of legal aid and do not represent the common Australian, there is no universal legal safety-net unlike the education and health systems.

This essay looks at Indigenous Australians in relation to the institution of ‘Criminal Law’. In this context, criminal law refers to legal processes such as police questioning, investigation and detainment as well as arrest, custody and bail. It also encompasses associated court procedures up to the point of sentencing. The focus will be to first outline the importance of criminal law to Indigenous Australians and then provide a critical analysis of the unique experiences and barriers that this group encounter in accessing criminal law in a positive way. Following this analysis, the development of possible ways to improve Indigenous access to criminal law will be discussed. Particular attention will be given to the way in which Indigenous Australians are affected by the transition of our modern justice system toward broader social justice concepts that incorporate risk management of potential criminal behaviour. From this discussion a conclusion will be drawn as to whether or not Indigenous Australians enjoy equality of criminal law and whether the structural elements of the law itself perpetuate Indigenous injustice and disadvantage.

Justice is the concept of moral rightness that is based on equality, access and fairness. This means that the law is applied equally, understood by all people and does not have a particularly harsh effect on an individual. In Australia, the adversary system is used as a means to achieve justice by proving the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, committed the crime. The criminal trial process has many features which aim to fulfill the requirements of achieving justice. These elements, though considers equality, fairness and access, are flawed in practice. Flaws such as the handling of evidence, jurors not understanding instructions, inadequate funds for legal

“However, Aboriginal people still struggle for more than words on paper. They require the enactment of visible justice, where aboriginal people have a pride of place and heritage that can be shared as well as respected.” (king, 2010, p.216).

There are certain areas of conflict between the Aboriginal Justice system and the Australian Law. Persons following the aboriginal customary laws if

Mental Illness - The prisoner’s moral culpability for his offending is reduced by reason of his mental illness and the objective

In the article ‘Public Reason and the Disempowerment of Aboriginal People in Canada’, written by Matthew Tomm, the author begins by providing a general perception towards the aboriginal perspective in the political and legal discussions through the use of a brief narrative. The author then transitions this background information into his argument surrounding this injustice. The author’s argument regarding the struggles of aboriginal people in Canada is clearly identified as a two-part statement. Part I features the obstacle of public justifiability, the idea utilized to actually justify the injustice towards the aboriginal people, defined by the author as “a central idea of contemporary political theory, which says that to be legitimate the laws of a democratic state should be justified to all its citizens” (Tomm 294). Part II illustrates the idea of public justifiability being at work in Canadian courts; regardless of their effort to implement the aboriginal perspectives into the legal system, their ambivalence is causing inefficiency and inconsistency. The author discusses the impact of the principle of public reason, the political liberal stance on the matter, the courts approach and handling of the normative dimensions of aboriginal perspectives, and the injustice of legal pluralism in regards to one being considered superior. All these ideas and events occurring within the law contribute to strengthening the author’s argument. In summary, the author’s argument surrounds

Human rights are the right that any individual is entitled under their government, and it can be provided in divergent forms. Thus in Australia, there are no set of ‘Bill of Rights’, comparable to many other western countries that share similar legal values and standards. The American ‘Bill of Rights’ states that the government ensures the freedom of speech and religion, protection from torture and punishment, and the fair procedures of law . There has always been a great debate on whether Australian government should acquire a constitutional Bill of Rights. I believe that it is not necessary to obtain a Bill of Rights as it is not necessary for Australian legal system, and further, it can bring confusion, greater debate and litigations. There are other forms of human rights law introduced into Australian legal system which sets boundaries for the government to respect individual rights. Consequently, it proves the unnecessity for a Bill of Rights in Australia.

The perception of the Australian criminal justice system’s legitimacy is determined by the actions of three institutions, and the manner in which they address issues of justice within society. For the criminal justice system to be seen with integrity and valued for its role, it is vital that all members of the community see the appropriate rectification of injustices through the police, courts and corrections. However, particular groups within society encounter the illegitimacy and social inequity embedded within these institutions, diminishing the effectiveness to which they fulfill their role. For women in particular, the institutions of the criminal justice system are notably unethical in their treatment of both victims and perpetrators of crime. Despite many reforms and recommendations for change, the criminal justice system ultimately fails in achieving justice for women, with the courts demonstrating the most significant attempt to eliminate social inequality and victimisation.

Based on the 2012 survey conducted by the New South Whales Law and Justice Foundation, it showed that around 1.7 million Australians can expect to encounter a legal problem each year and 490,000 of those people will not receive legal advice due to financial reasons or lack of knowledge. The prices for legal services have increase by 49% in the last 6 years alone. This dramatic inflation of costs within the justice system leads to increased difficulty within society to be able to afford anything but the most basic of legal representation. When people who can’t afford a lawyer turn to government funded legal assistance, they find that due to chronic funding shortages, ongoing help is often restricted to those on only the lowest incomes and even further, is only for a narrow collection of family and criminal legal