'One Punch King Hit' In New South Wales

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

Assault defines it self as the direct infliction of force, injury or violence upon a person, including attempts or threats. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, there were 176,427 recorded assaults in Australia in 2007 (AIC, 2015). The Australian Institute of Criminology states that assault is the most common form of violent crime and that assault rates have been on a steady incline over the last 10 years with aggravated assault being more prominent that non-aggravated assault (AIC, 2015). There are several characteristics behind an assault offender, some being that there has been a history of abuse, low Socio-Economic

Other punitive measures, that have developed out of the just deserts mentality, such as three-strikes laws, which required life sentences for those with three convictions, as well as Scared Straight programs and boot camps, have negligible or detrimental effects to recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Studies have repeatedly shown that long prison sentences and lack of rehabilitation actually increases the likelihood of reoffending (Canadian Civil Liberties Association [CCLA], 2011). While using punitive measures in the name of retribution may make those in society feel safe, there is no evidence to support this approach.

It is believed that punishment works to protect people from their criminals as it used to be seen as a fear in people’s mind to avoid inappropriate behaviour against other people, harming other people in certain ways and breaking the laws set by society or government. Punishment is a common view of human beings and they choose to behave appropriately towards their duty to follow rules set out by government laws to avoid fines or sentences. Sentencing is categorised n various degrees depending on the type and severity of crime committed, and imprisonment is considered as most common way to protect communities from its offenders and deterrent to re-offending all over the world. As Murray (1997) claims that punishment reduces crime

Out of the shadows and into the limelight, the once hidden crime of domestic violence has recently emerged within the Australian community as a widespread criminal issue. This abuse of power occurs in a relationship when one partner attempts to physically or psychologically dominate and control the other. Inflicting physical harm upon another human being is undoubtedly a breach of the criminal law, yet the Australian legal system takes little measures to protect the wider community from this type of violence. According to Family Lawyer Richard Ingleby, domestic violence has often been condoned by the legal system due to the fact that assaults occur in the ‘private’ realm of the home where legal measures are regarded as inappropriate, and interventionist. However, by overlooking domestic violence as a criminal offence, does the Australian legal system fail to adequately protect the family unit from this form of violence? Recent studies from the Australian Bureau of Statics have revealed that 23% of women who have ever been married or engaged in a de facto relationship have experienced violence by a partner at some time during the relationship. Due to the secrecy that once surrounded this kind of abuse, victims often feel unable to speak out and seek help, therefore even large surveys cannot provide accurate estimates of the extend of domestic violence within the Australia community (Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre, 1998). Despite the high incidence rate of

Alcohol impairs a person’s judgement and can increase aggressive behaviors (it does most of the time). Alcohol related crime/violence rates are rising very quickly throughout the country. There are two million incarcerated men and women in the United States, and 37% of those people admit to drinking before being arrested. When it comes to rape and sexual assault, 90% of cases involve the drinking of alcohol. Almost 30% of inmates reported being under the influence of alcohol or drugs when committing murder. Almost 3 million violent crimes happen a year in which alcohol is involved. In addition, 95% of all violent crimes reported at American colleges involve alcohol. It has been proven that binge drinking or prolonged drinking can lead to acts that are more violent and that can put other people around the drinker in serious danger. Substance abuse plays a huge role in these violent crimes. The more a person drinks the less they can control their actions and how violent they become.

In the 1990s, states began to execute mandatory sentencing laws for repeat offenders. This statute became known as “three strike laws”. The three strikes law increases prison sentence for people convicted of a felony. If you have two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, it limits the ability that offenders have to receive a punishment other than life sentencing. By 2003 over half of the states and federal government had enacted the “three strike laws”. The expectation behind it was to get career criminals off the street for the good of the public. However, the laws have their connoisseurs who charge sentences that are often excessive to the crimes committed and that incarcerate of three strike inmates for 25 years to life. Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court has upheld three strike laws and had rejected the fact that they amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

What used to be a private issue has significantly reformed to be punishable by law highlighting society’s changing values. The main victims of domestic violence are usually women and children who are subjected to extreme abuse by the spouse. The Family Law Act 1975(Cth) established the Family court which attempted to address issues of domestic violence. However, the imposition of this legislation has reflected societal concerns where the law does not effectively deal with domestic violence as cases are continually unreported. Also, police are not adequately investigating the issue. For example, in the case of Swan, Wayne v D.P.P (2008) an indigenous woman was reluctant in reporting abuse until she was caught wandering the streets, heavily affected by alcohol. Due to cultural barriers, indigenous woman are compelled endure intense abuse in the household. The enactment of Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Act 1999(NSW) made it mandatory for police to investigate breaches of apprehended domestic violence orders (ADVOs) and arrest perpetrators if necessary. Greater use of ADVOs and investigation has reduced the amount of verbal abuse, physical violence and harassments. However, the case of Jean Majdalawi (1996) forced legislations to take further actions as the victim was shot in the head by her husband outside Parramatta Family Court even though an ADVO had been filed against him. Consequently, the event

Envision if everyone in the world decided to go around breaking laws because they did not agree with them. There would be a bunch of unnecessary arrests, great amount of violence, and the world would be a terrible place to live. As citizens of this country we have the commitment to adhere to the rules, laws, and submit to any consequences we may receive. In the great words of Socrates, “One should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you.” Breaking laws is never morally justifiable.

To formulate the law, it was decided that the most valuable approach to reduce violent crimes was through a mandated policy decision requiring identification through past behavior of those who demonstrated clear conduct to participate in violent criminal and whose conduct was not discouraged by the usual concepts of punishment. Reed (2004) stated, “The overall purpose of punishment within the criminal justice system is to prevent the commission of crimes to deter recidivism. For this objective to be successful, punishment must be effective in addressing the problems and solutions for the entire system, not just in individual cases” (p. 502). In reducing crimes, various methods and theories are taken into account. Some of these methods are additional police, additional courts, mandatory sentencing, and increased prosecutorial resources (Reed, 2004). Because the Three Strikes Law varies from state to state, this leads to the many problems it causes in the criminal justice system.

One of the most controversial laws in the efforts to reduce crime has been the "three-strikes" laws that have been enacted. This law, which is already in twenty-seven states, requires that offenders convicted of three violent crimes be sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole. The law is based on the idea that the majority of felonies are committed by about 6% of hard core criminals and that crime can be eliminated by getting these criminals off the streets. Unfortunately, the law fails to take into account its own flaws and how it is implemented.

The term “three-strikes” stems from the reference used in the game of baseball. The three-strikes law essentially means that a criminal is sanctioned or permitted two criminal offenses before “striking out” on the third criminal offense. This confirms that a habitual offender who is convicted of three or more violent or serious charges, “strikes out” and will receive harsher punishments. This form of legislation shows a drastic shift from retribution to incapacitation or deterrence as a type of punishment. Punishment or the threat of punishment is a representation of a mechanism that deters individuals from further engaging in criminal activity.

Family violence is a multifaceted problem in Canada. In the last 20 years, the majority of the provinces and territories have created legislation to address the issue (1). As of 2011, 26% of all crime in Canada was that of family violence with the majority of the victims being female (2). The economic impact in Canada is estimated to be $7.4 billion with over 80% of that cost falling to the victim (3). While the prosecution of these crimes is high, the conviction rate remains low (4). The pathologist Sir Bernard Spilsbury stated, “Bruises are a much neglected branch of injuries” (5). Given that 71% of the reported family violence cases are physical assaults, most of these victims will have bruises of various ages (6). In such cases,

It is an issue that is also impacting the Australian population as there are a numerous assaults as an outcome of domestic violence (ABC News, 2014).Figure 1 shows high rates of domestic violence related assaults that have occurred only in New South Wales in 2013. In greater Sydney there were 15,413 assaults related to domestic violence (ABC News, 2014).

Mandatory minimums and three strike laws, are they really the answer to the crime problem America has faced for years? Many would say yes, including me, as long as it is for a violent crime such as murder, rape or arson; some feel that even theft, drug trafficking or possession, and burglary are all worthy of the 25-to-life sentence that can be carried under the mandatory minimums for three strike laws. A three-strike law is a law that states that you will be sentenced to 25years to life for three violations and convictions of a law. Where the three strike laws have mandatory sentences, mandatory sentences aren’t always tied in with three strike laws. A mandatory minimum is a law that requires someone