Justice Systems Compared2 Essay example

The Australian Criminal Justice system has an intricate and diverse structure that makes it one of the most unique systems in the world. The Commonwealth of Australia was approved by the British Parliament in 1900 and came into existence on January 1, 1901. The federal constitution combined British and American practices, with a parliamentary government, but with two houses - the popularly elected House of Representatives and Senate representing the former colonies. This began the start of a new era of policing. (Findlay, Odgers, Yeo). The Commonwealth of Australia is a federalist government composed of a national government and six State governments. There are nine different criminal justice systems in Australia - six states, two territories, and one federal. The eight States and Territories have powers to enact their own criminal law, while the Commonwealth has powers to enact laws. Criminal law is administered principally through the federal, State and Territory police. (Chappell, Wilson, Heaton). In this essay an in depth analysis of the Australian criminal justice system will be given, along with a comparison to the United States criminal justice system throughout the essay. As well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of the system and finally a brief summary of how the Australian criminal justice system structure could be improved to better suit the evolving society. Australia has a complex and very intuitive system of policing that

Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

In the United State we have many systems, like all others, it is separated the use of some irrelevant or untrustworthy evidence. The system that I am referring to and the one that we will be discussing in this paper is the exclusionary rule. It is the introduction of a good evidence, that it is obtained by a bad law enforcement, is most common in the United State than other countries legal system. To put it in other words, the exclusionary rule is controversial. Therefore, many experts say that it sets criminals free on minor points. In this paper, I will speak about the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule, how it is effecting the criminal justice system of the United State. In addition, I will speak and summarize the case of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott from 1998, this will be a great example of the exclusionary rule and the effects about them. Furthermore, I will show how this case was important with the Exclusionary Rule, and my opinion on the matter.

The fourth argument in favour of the criminal justice system is that it strives to facilitate a better understanding, for citizens, on how decisions are made at each stage while an investigation into a crime and trial proceedings are in progress. It is important that citizens understand the criminal law and order process so they can contribute effectively as witnesses and victims of crime which is fundamental to decisions made about prosecutorial screening and police investigation into a crime (Daly, K. et al, 2006). It is also found that it is crucial that the processes that make up the criminal justice system are followed, to eliminate the likelihood of serious distortions in a criminal case. For instance, although matters concerning sentencing, criminal law and procedures are separate to each other, it becomes important for the citizen to identify them and their functions so essential values in each of these areas are well known and therefore held accountable by society (Smith & Natalier, 2005, p.45). This knowledge will facilitate society to ascertain if each department is allowed to operate independently but in line with the laid down policies, hence the law being applied amicably (Bryett et al,

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

Cases R v Park (1994) where procedures laid down in the PACE Act were not followed properly and evidence could not be submitted. Also R v Fenlley [1989] in which the defendant had not been informed properly of the reason for stop and search can lead to suspects being unable to be prosecuted. It is hard to justify these results and describe the use of stop and searches as a valuable tool in the detection of crime. Especially when there is a large amount of evidence from reports, cases and statistical information showing the disproportionate amount of Black and Asian individuals that are stopped and searched under section 1 of PACE 1984. This has led to issues arising between the police and the community.

This essay will explore how prosecutorial misconduct causes wrongful convictions in both the United States and Australia. This essay will also argue that rehabilitation and compensation should be provided by the state. A major flaw in the criminal justice system not only in the United States but also in Australia, is the failure to set forth a plan for the people who were exonerated to be accepted back into society. The lack of a plan for rehabilitation for the exonerated poses a problem for society since some might find it easier to find a job in prison then in the real world, this process makes it immensely difficult for prisoners to get acclimated back into society. The Australian Law Review Committee is an entity which evaluates and gives

The expression ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ is a set term in Anglo-American common law. It stands in the context of unlawful investigations, searches and seizures and the question of whether ‘neutral’ information can be admissible in court preceding.

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

''The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain convictions by means of unlawful searches and enforced confessions . . . should find no sanction in the judgment of the courts which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.'' [9]

Aguilar v. Texas established the “two-pronged test” for determining whether a confidential informant’s tip is enough to establish probable cause for a magistrate to issue a search warrant (Aguilar v. Texas, 1964). The test consisted of the reliability of the informant and the basis of knowledge that he or she has of the criminal activity. While these two elements are important, they should not be the sole basis that a magistrate uses to prove probable cause exists. Instead, these elements should be used to as guides when considering the totality of the circumstances of the situation. Illinois v. Gates vacated the two-pronged tests and installed the traditional “totality of the circumstances” approach.

In Australia, the criminal justice system is largely effective in achieving justice for individuals however due to the difficulty in simultaneously balancing the rights of the victim and accused, law reform may be necessary to further the achievement of justice. The criminal justice system is a set of laws and rules that are established by the government to assist in protecting the members of the community and their property. The criminal justice system is also set in today’s society to prevent crime and to impose penalties on those who violate the law. Legal measures within the criminal justice system include; court mechanisms, legislative reform and police. The efficacy of legal measure in achieving justice for individuals is evident in relation to; bail and remand, juries, double jeopardy, police powers in arrest and mandatory sentences.

Search and seizure is a technique used in much civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person 's property and impound any related evidence to the offence. In other words, it is a pursuit by law enforcement officials for possessions or communications alleged to be evidence of the crime, and the act of taking possession of this assets. The law of search and seizures is very essential in helping fight the current pursuit of criminals. The evidence from the search and rescue process provides some form of proof for the prosecution of the alleged criminal.

With the use of relevant case Law I will assess police stop and search powers, section 1 of the PACE ACT of 1984 some other important statutory provisions, discuss the legitimacy and appropriateness to determine whether the PACE codes of practice have been effective in safeguarding people’s rights and liberties