Muhame The CJS

Justice can be a controversial subject when it comes to what people want to get out of it. Victims of offences want offenders to be penalised accordingly for their actions, though justice does not always work in their favour. For some people in society, justice can vary from having to pay significant fines to incarceration but how can we truly achieve justice as a community? Communities should come together to work out processes and orders to achieve the type of justice they want to see, focusing on long term outcomes instead of the short term. ‘Priority is given to the community, enhancing its responsibility for social control while building its capacity to achieve this and other outcomes relevant

Provision [SCRGSP], 2005; Jeffries and Bond, 2012). It is also widely discussed that there is an overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice system itself (Jeffries and Bond, 2009), representing up to one quarter of prisoners in Australia (Makkai and Payne, 2003; Payne, 2005). This essay will address the current issues that Indigenous Australians face within the criminal justice system, particularly, with courts. The aim of this essay besides addressing these issues will also be to provide suggestions or alternatives that may help resolve the presented issues and improve the experience for Indigenous Australians in court.

The criminal justice system plays a fundamental role in achieving justice, as the system aims to protect all members of the community fairly and equally. However, in the criminal case of R v Loveridge, it is evident that the justice system fails to apply the law to equally balance the needs of the victims and the community. In this case, the offender Kieran Loveridge pleaded guilty to five counts of offences; three charges of common assault, one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, the victim being Thomas Kelly, Loveridge received 4 years’ non-parole for manslaughter, Loveridge’s total effective sentence therefore is 7 years and 2 months with an effective

The criminal justice system within Australia is the means through which those who break rules stipulated within legislation and legal regulations are brought to justice in the form of punishment. The legal and non-legal measures implemented are applied across all aspects of crime. The legal measures include all institutions and processes enabled by law to deal with aspects of the criminal justice system. Non-legal measures include diversionary programs such as restorative justice. The use of non-legal measure in achieving justice is generally seen when dealing with young offenders. It is used in an attempt to allow the

Juries are an essential component of Queensland’s criminal justice system. However, the current jury system in criminal law cases does not effectively meet the needs of society. This thesis is established by first examining the role that juries play in the criminal justice system and the various interests of those affected by juries. This is followed by a consideration of arguments for and against juries and reforms that may be made to the jury system. Overall, it will be seen that there are substantial reasons to reform the current system.

The criminal justice system used today is to follow principles that protect and establish equality for all and while the United States criminal justice system may strive to follow these right of the people, but unfortunately, this is where the system falls short of fundamental American principles. Repeatedly the criminal justice system does the adverse of what it’s supposed to do. It does not protect the many liberties the people should have. Some may argue that the criminal justice system is indeed fair for

The Australian justice system implements the adversarial system in which opposing parties present their case before an unbiased decision maker, to ensure procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice are upheld.The system has been structured this way to ensure justice is served for the victim, offender and the broader community. The nature of justice is that it is equal to all, fair from bias and is accessible. In the case on R v Rolfe and R v Weston (2017) the two offenders; Timothy Rolfe and John Weston, members of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Club were sentenced at the NSW Supreme Court on a joint criminal enterprise for the murder of 29-year-old Laurence Starling. The killing was motivated by revenge for an unpaid extortion debt of $200,000 between the deceased’s business partner Mr Fields and a high-ranking member of the ‘’Rebels’’ who sent his subordinates to seize Mr Field’s assets as compensation. The complex circumstances of the crime were problematic for the justice system because particular methods had to be implemented in the process of achieving justice however the justice system was relatively effective in reaching a just outcome for majority of the stakeholders due to its resource efficiency, responsiveness, accessibility, standards of fairness, protection of individual rights and meeting society’s needs.

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

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) in 1991 provided documentation on the death of indigenous Australians in prison or police custody. In doing so the report highlighted the substantial over representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Criminal Justice system and provided detailed analysis of underlying factors. The reports findings were believed to be the foundation of change. However, regardless of a range of policy changes and crime prevention programs in repose to the report, over representation in the criminal justice system remains. The issue is one of the most significant social justice and public policy issue in the contemporary Australian criminal justice system. The RCIADIC made 339 recommendations, most of which have been implemented into the criminal justice system over the past two decades. Never the less the systematic over representation remains prevalent. The purpose of this essay is to understand over representation as it exists in the contemporary criminal justice system. Particular emphasise will be placed on the levels of women and youths in the criminal justice system, their contact with the system and empirically based risk factors pertaining to over representation. An evaluation of alternative programs in the pre and post sentencing stage and the impact such programs would have on the over representation will be conducted.

Almost every day, we hear about justice being served upon criminals and we, as a society, feel a sense of relief that another threat to the public has been sentenced to a term in prison, where they will no longer pose a risk to the world at large. However, there are very rare occasions where the integrity of the justice system gets skewed and people who should not have been convicted are made to serve heavy prison sentences. When word of this judicial misstep reaches the public, there is social outcry, and we begin to question the judicial system for committing such a serious faux pas.

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines fairness to be ‘the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is reasonable’ and justice as ‘the quality of being fair or reasonable’ (Oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, 2014). Investigation of the characteristics of the Australian Legal System (ALS) including its adoption, structure and operational rules, reveal that for the most part the system is based on these two attributes. This inference is further evidenced by the legally binding operational framework assigned to the financial services industry and reflected in the codes of practice that also guide it.

The question of fairness and equality in the criminal justice system has its original roots dating back to the Magna Carta in 1215 AD. The latest document to define the criminal justice is the United States Constitution which specifically in the 14th amendment which states ”no state can make or enforce laws on its citizens, nor shall they deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor will they deny equal protection of the laws”. Section one of the fourteenth amendment means that the states cannot make any laws or enforce them on any person without due process and makes it illegal to deny equal protection. The founding fathers envisioned a justice system that is blind as evidenced by the

The Criminal Justice System, a system the British government set up to deal with the treatment of law-breakers, has three main goals to achieve social order, these are, (1) enforcing criminal law, (2) maintaining law and order in the society, and (3) helping victims. This may seem to be a well thought of system, but like any other organisation, there are flaws, and one of the major flaws is discrimination, and the bias that stems from discrimination.

The legitimacy of the criminal justice system is based largely upon both its effectiveness and its fairness. Its effectiveness is judged by its ability to investigate and detect crime, identify offenders and mete out the appropriate sanctions to those who have been convicted of offences. Its fairness is judged by its thoroughness and the efforts it makes to redress the resource imbalance between the accused and the state at the investigatory, pre-trial, trial and appellate stages. The system does this by providing evidentiary protection and effective legal representation at all points.

Victims of crime, particularly those violent in nature, have their rights violated and experience exceedingly high level of trauma and stress (Appendix B, 2015). It is surprising then, that Criminal Justice Systems (CJS) around the world forgo many victims’ rights and provided limited space for them to interact with the system (Sarre, 1999). Rather systems are built around balancing the rights of offenders against the greater safety and need of the community whilst neglecting individual justice needs of the victims (Sarre, 1999). With limited rights and minimal involvement a victim often becomes a disposable utensil to the CJS (Clark, 2010). They are used by the courts to determine the ultimate truth so justice may be served, with no care for the damage that may be caused in the process and then disposed of the case is concluded (Braun, 2014). In 2011-2012 a victimisation survey revealed that 1.2 million Australians were victims of personal crimes, such as assault, robbery and sexual assault (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Of these victims, only half of the crimes were reported to the police (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Such low reporting rates have been contributed in part to this notion of imbalance offender VS victims’ rights (Braun, 2014). Due to the sensitive nature of sexual crimes, the limited available evidence and victim rights, these crimes tend to carry the lowest reporting rates (Braun, 2014). During the latest Australian