Do Queensland 's Sentencing Laws Focus Too Heavily On Punishment

A great deal of harm is caused by illicit drugs, particularly to dependant users. Drug use damages the user and diminishes an individual’s social cohesion. An individual’s dependency on illicit drugs places a heavy burden on the Australian legal system, welfare(Centrelink), the justice system(lawyers) and the medical system. The many burdens caused by the manufacture, supply and use of illicit drugs effect the efficiency of Australia. The Drugs misuse and trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) applies to over 240 drugs, including

This journal article discusses how the government has increased “mandatory sentencing” using “aggressive initiatives” for drug related crimes. Additionally, these government implemented sentencing guidelines have made the prison population grow

There has been debate over whether non-violent drug offenders belong in prison. Some believe all drug offenders should be put in prison, others believe that it depends on circumstances, and, still others believe only violent drug offenders should be incarcerated. Overcrowding is one point of contention. It seems as though the slightest infraction can land a person in prison. Violence is rampant, whether inmate versus inmate or inmate versus guard. Rehabilitation or education is practically non-existent, unless an inmate teaching another inmate how to commit the ‘perfect’ crime is counted. Evidence shows being in prison does little to rehabilitate an inmate. Clearly, the system does not work.

R v Andrew Leigh Jones pleaded guilty in the magistrate court to trafficking a controlled drug and well as 12 other offences that was brought up from the magistrate court to be sentenced in accordance to section 18 A. Some of the 12 other offences included 5 counts of failing to comply with bail agreements, 2 counts of driving while disqualified, 1 count of driving a motor vehicle without being authorised, one count of driving an unregistered vehicle, 1 count of driving an uninsured vehicle, 1 count of possessing a prohibited weapon and 1 count of unlawful possession. For trafficking a controlled drug a maximum penalty of 50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years while the other 12 offences accumulative not including drug trafficking

Since the declaration of “the war on drugs”, society’s perspective relating to punishment of drug-involved offenders has been much too vindictive. Now, an offender is not allowed to be sent to treatment by a judge, he must go to jail. This is due to mandatory sentencing. Upcoming diversion programs are an excellent alternative to “hard time” for qualifying drug offenders. These programs are becoming very popular and evidence shows that they are greatly beneficial, not only to the accused, but to society as a whole. Diversion programs benefit many regarding the increase in community involvement and safer city streets, rehabilitation of offenders, and financial means. The criminal justice system is currently at a stand still in regards to convicted

Drug Courts came about as a result of a backlogged court system and a steady, rapidly increasing prison population. Drug courts are a form of diversion that helps the offender through rehabilitation and the community through an increased sense of protection, which serves the best interest of everyone. Drug Courts are community based intermediate sanctions that incorporate treatment principles into the Criminal Justice System and divert drug offenders from traditional punishments of probation and prison. The objective of drug courts programs is to treat the underlying problems of addiction among drug offenders and eliminate participants’ future drug use and crime.

In Canada, the amount of illegal drugs on the street increased by 89% in the last 10 years and expenditure from illegal drug sales are over $7 billion dollars annually. It is no doubt that Canada is in the midst of a war on drugs, but is Canada’s current approach working? In 2011, the mandatory minimum sentencing for drug possession doubled, and didn’t include legislation for those special circumstances, such a mental illness.

The mandatory sentence of two years’ imprisonment is unconstitutional because it is “cruel and unusual punishment” which infringes upon the accused’s right not to be subjected to such treatment. Firstly, it is determined that the mandatory minimum sentence in this case is grossly disproportionate to the accused’s circumstances and would be reasonably foreseeable that the provision would have the same overreaching effect on other offenders. Secondly, the provision in question in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not saved by section 1 of the Charter as it has failed the prescribed Oakes test. The test gives weight to the law’s objective in comparison to the means of achieving it, which in this case, impaired too heavily on the right of the accused.

This year, a drug court will be created at the Melbourne Magistrates Court, Farrah Tomazin writes. This implementation is in conjunction with the Australian Government’s Ice Action Plan, in hopes to halt Australia’s growing methamphetamine issue. The proceedings of a drug court begin with identification of offenders in need of drug treatment, following with community

In the United States, we see harsh minimum punishments given to drug criminals because the court system, in order

In most cases, one of the main objectives of courts and the sentences they impose is that of rehabilitation. This is evidenced through a growing move in favour of a more holistic approach to justice, trying to address the issues which may have led to the crime, rather than just punishing the end result. One of the prime examples of this therapeutic approach to justice is the introduction of the Drug Court. Governed by the Drug Court Act 1998, the Drug court has both Local court and District court jurisdiction, and seeks to target the causes of drug-related criminal behaviour. It achieves this by ensuring that those who go through it receive treatment for their addictions, thereby reducing their propensity to reoffend, as many crimes are motivated by the need to satisfy addictions.

There is a debate in the American government system on how to handle the use of drug and alcohol. In the 1960s drugs were uprising along with youth rebellion and in 1971 Nixon declared a “War on Drugs” (Citation a brief). This name is not to be confused with the band War on Drugs, but the term is still popularly used to describe the policies that Government officials are making regarding drugs and alcohol. This debate got reheated when Colorado legalized weed for medical and recreational use, followed by several other states. There has slowly been a shift in mindset from, “alcoholics are drug addicts are all criminals and we (the law) should throw them in jail” to “addiction is a disease.” Even the way that addicts/alcoholics are treated has changed to treatment centers with specialist versus throwing them in the hospital to detox and hoping for a change. Policies that are shifting the penalty from incarceration to treatment reflect these changes and help the individual suffering from the disease to get back on their feet. The war on drugs rings on, but changes are being made.

Drug abuse is shown to be connected to all different kinds of crime in the United States, and in many circumstances, crime is inspired by drug abuse and addiction. In fact, 80% of criminal offenders abuse drugs or alcohol (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). Also, 60% of those who are arrested test positive for illicit drugs when they are arrested, and 60-80% commit another crime, typically drug-related, after leaving prison (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). And, even after these individuals put in the time in prison that would allow them to go through the uncomfortable process of detoxing, 95% of them will chose to go back to drug abuse after prison (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). Given these overwhelming statistics, it is clear that drug abuse, and repeated or continued drug abuse, are a serious problem facing the criminal justice system.

Currently, drug courts have been proven to be successful at reducing recidivism of offenders. In the United States there are about 120,000 people receiving help in order to rehabilitate them and to try to reduce the chances of recidivism (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2011). These programs require individuals to participate in the programs for a minimum of one year. During this year the individuals are required to appear in court and be drug tested at

Those incarcerated today are not given the chance to change their behavior patterns, especially when it is in regard to drug addiction. The criminal justice system in general does not consider drug abuse as anything but a crime and does not think about treating the disease of addiction in order to reduce or eliminate the crimes that come as a