Gonzales Family Murder- Research Paper

Because they said he was not guilty. This made way for freedom of press, and the fact that the jury verdict won made way for an upcoming democracy.

At the age of 21 Mr Gittany was convicted of two offences of receiving stolen property and assaulting a police office in the execution of his duty and malicious wounding. He was sentenced to a total of 2.5 years to be served by periodic detention. The circumstances of the assault and malicious wounding was on 23 March 1993 two police officers attended Mr Gittany’s home after he failed to appear at Parramatta Local Court in relation to the two charges of receiving stolen property and on being told the purpose of the visit Mr Gittany became agitated and during a struggle he bit Detective Constable Bristow on the ear severing a portion of it. (AustLII 2015)

The prosecutor, Greg Smith, claimed that “the young boy knew what he was doing and understood the consequences of his actions when he pushed Corey Davis into the river at Macquarie fields”. Although LMW was only 10 years-old at the time the death of Corey occurred, he was thought to be capable of “forming criminal intent” which means he was able of committing a crime.

He is tried for the crime of murder, but is not judged solely on his actions during the aforementioned crime. He is judged on his specific actions that society regards as absurd

Currently if a D aged 18 or over is convicted of murder, the judge must pass a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. For offenders aged 10-17 found guilty of murder, the judge must order that they are detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. The fact the sentencing is mandatory and the judge has no discretion leaves a lack of ability to sentence according to blameworthiness, unlike all other offences which have discretion in sentencing; Gotts. This lack of differentiation between blameworthiness is further emphasised by the Government’s sentencing guidelines laid down in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Under this act in cases of murders of police officers or murders involving firearms D should receive a 30 year sentence. However, in cases like that of Martin (Anthony) such a sentence would appear unjust.

Many people are hesitant on deciding whether they support the death penalty and in turn use other factors, like expenses, to determine their answer. They prefer to crunch the numbers and see what works better economically for society. Economically, it is actually cheaper to house an offender in jail for the rest of their life compared to the pricing to execute them. The reason is due to the pre-trial costs; in general, capital cases are far more complicated than non-capital cases and therefore require more money for the overall process. Several experts are needed to evaluate the forensic evidence, mental health and the social history of the defendant. Another expense is the procedure of jury selection. With the death penalty in question, the jury selection in capital cases are much more time consuming and expensive. In

from his prosecution and being able to find a verdict to plead him guilty. With many crimes he

This brings us to the second issue to be outlined, that is Mr Hughes crimes. Aside from a charge of break and enter as a child, another charge regarding sexual relations with a juvenile when he himself was a juvenile, and at the age of twenty-two, convictions for false pretences, theft and drug use, Mr Hughes has managed to remain crime free regardless of his drug addictions. Also, until the most recent crimes, Mr Hughes has never served a prison term. Thus in view of these facts, the court regards this as an insignificant criminal record considering Mr Hughes current age.

The New South Wales (NSW) criminal justice system has been separated into “two tiers of justice”. The two tiers of justice involve the separation of lower and higher courts, where the lower courts are comprised of Local courts and the higher courts are comprised of District and Supreme courts. The local courts role lies mainly in exercising summary jurisdiction whereas more serious indictable offences are dealt with in higher courts. However, there is more than just a jurisdictional divide and there are other aspects that significantly distinguish the lower courts from the higher courts.

Richard Ramirez nick-named the night stalker, was an American serial killer who broke into homes all across California raping, torturing, and murdering victims. Ramirez's first known murder took place on June 28, 1984 when he attacked 79 year old Jennie Vincow, who was viciously sexually assaulted, stabbed and murdered during a burglary in her home. Ramirez's second known killing occurred almost nine months after his first attack. On March 17, 1985, he attacked Maria Hernandez, who escaped him, and then instead killed her roommate, Dayle Okazaki. He also shot and killed Tsai Lian Yu the same evening. This spree started a media frenzy that dubbed Ramirez the valley intruder. Ten days later, on March 27, Ramirez murdered 64 year old Vincent Zazzara and Zazzara's wife, Maxine. Ramirez used an attack style that would become a pattern for the him. Vincent was shot first, then Maxine was brutally assaulted and stabbed to death. Ramirez also gouged out Maxine Zazzara's eyes.

Colin Ross is known widely for the “Gun Alley Murder”, which is the story or a 12 year old getting raped and left for dead. Before the “Gun Alley Murder” even happened, Ross was charged and imprisoned for using threatening words and carrying a firearm without permission. In April of 1921, Ross and his brothers bought a wine shop and renamed it “The Australian Wine Saloon”. In his older years, Ross was charged with multiple criminal actions throughout the years of owning the saloon, one of the many chargers was for robbery. Ross told Frank Walsh to rob a customer and the proceeds would be shared between them, the customer was shot and could not tell anything to police. Walsh was sentenced to six months hard labor and Ross was acquitted of his charges.

The system works that the criminal does the crime, the criminal gets caught, tried and convicted, and it is understood that the punishment will be severe. The person the criminal has killed no longer has a part to play in this. Unfortunately the murderer has deprived their family and friends of a loved one. Their grief begins with the murder. “It may not end with the murderer’s execution, but the execution does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal- a feeling which often fails to arise while the murder still lives on” (The Facts). the system in place currently is there for the purpose of granting justice, cannot do so for the surviving victims, unless the murderer himself is put to death (The Facts).

Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood makes a great case for justice in relation to death. In the book, two criminals, Dick and Perry, worked together to murder the Clutters. They got caught and trial, however at the time Kansas maximum incarceration was life imprisonment with parole and most prisoners are paroled after twenty years. Twenty years of imprisonment for brutally killing four members of the most influential family in the area, causing mass hysteria for everyone in Holcomb and for others who are involved in the case is unquestionably too short. However, is the death penalty fair for both of them, considering Dick had a mental disorder and Perry had a terrible upbringing? This brings us to a bigger, broader question: to what extent does the law and judgement system achieve their main purpose: bringing justice to everyone?

The lack of proper resources during a trial can make the difference between the innocence and guilt of a person. The death penalty does not always show the innocence or guilt of a person. It shows how much he or she is willing to spend to help the trial go his or her way. The death penalty is an unfair system to those who cannot afford the “evidence” they need to help free them.

Young offenders are risking greater ‘pain’ such as lengthy imprisonment or large fines, for dangerous offences like car theft, or home invasions. This reckless ignorance of potential outcomes, is not taken into perspective when looking at it from a classical perspective. The inability to understand the recklessness and lack of rationality in Melbourne’s youth, is a key weakness and limitation of Classical criminology.