Many believe that in regards to the justice system in Australia, the punishment for committing various crimes does not fit the offence. There are various crimes where the punishment is agreed to be much less severe than it should be, and other crimes where the penalty afflicted should be lowered. There are numerous cases in Australia today that prove that the punishment does not fit the crime in Australia. The crimes of the ‘one punch law’, domestic abuse cases, and paedophilia are all examples of acts that often do not receive the punishments they deserve. These cases all have penalties that are far too low to fit the crimes committed. These cases will prove that in Australia, the punishment does not always fit the crime.
In 2013, a law was passed known as the ‘one punch law’. This is also known as ‘assault causing death’, referring to an act of assault that results in the accidental death of the victim. The current maximum jail term for breaking this law is thirteen
…show more content…
However, a domestic violence felony can result in several thousands of dollars in fines, incarceration for longer than one year, mandatory rehabilitation courses, and probation periods. It could also result in a loss of custody and visiting privileges, or the inability to secure a good job or housing. Aggravating factors may convert a misdemeanor charge into a felony. Such aggravating factors include an act of violence results in death or serious bodily harm, criminal acts towards a minor, especially very young children such as babies or toddlers, violent acts or threats involving deadly weapons, or even criminal acts involving sexual abuse. The average prison terms for common assault is 4.6 months, or even just 12.6 months for recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. This is far lower than what it should
Determining whether Queensland should re-introduce capital punishment as a sentence will be the focus of this assignment. Capital punishment, also
In the United States there are four main goals when it comes to punishment which are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). The main goals for these punishments are to maintain order over society and to prevent recidivism (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). This ties into the Ecology perspective. By maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism, it ties into all of the issues regarding the Ecology perspective which requires for each issue to address the individual, family, community and society. Maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism strives toward making a safer environment for the individual, family, community and society. There is no universal agreement for making the severity of punishment just or fair (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). When it comes to retribution the person who is getting punished deserves the punishment (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Retribution refers to when an individual commits a certain crime then that person must receive a punishment proportionate to that crime or suffering that they may have caused towards the victim (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Regarding deterrence there are two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). General deterrence focuses on the society in general and wants to scare everyone away from committing crimes (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Specific deterrence focuses on criminals that have already been convicted and wants to prevent them from
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
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
Did you know Australia use to be a big prison? Australia is the 6th largest continent. Australia is the only continent covered by a single country. In Australia there are more kangaroo’s than people. A person in Australia hasn’t died from a spider bite since 1987. The top ten deadliest snakes live in Australia. There are over 200 different languages which are spoken in Australia. This includes 45 languages, as well non-English languages like Greek, Italian, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Mandarin, and Arabic. A desert area known as the outback covers much of the land.
The concept of mandatory sentencing is a relatively new idea in the legal field. It was first introduced in 1951 with the Boggs Act, and it made simple marijuana possession a minimum of two to ten years with a $20,000 fine. This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Since then, the scope and presence of mandatory sentencing has only grown, especially mandatory sentences for drug related offenses. Recently, there has been a growing concern over the use and implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing, with many believing it reduces a judge’s ability to give out a sentence that they feel accordingly fits the crime. Many advocates for mandatory
“One punch” assaults known as “The King Hit” have cost over 90 lives since the year 2000. New South Wales have had the largest number of one punch assaults which is 28, followed by Queensland and Victoria who have recorded 24 cases each. Picture this, imagine a teenage boy who is having fun with his mates, and he gets “King Hit” by a stranger in which had taken his life. You would think that the killer would receive a very harsh prison sentence right? Well that isn’t always the case. One person who was a victim in a situation very similar to this. Thomas Kelly. Thomas Kelly is an 18 year old boy who was “King Hit” in Kings Cross in New South Wales. All it took was one punch to end his life. The attacker received a 4 year
Over the past few years there has been an increase of Aboriginal juveniles in the justice system. The current law in Australia does not adequately protect these Aboriginal children who are caught in the system and must immediately be reformed. The issues with the current law is that it does not conform with the United Nation’s Convention’s on the Rights of the Child and the courts and police officers are not arresting or sentencing Aboriginal juveniles in conjunction with the current law. In order to address the over-representation of Aboriginal juveniles in the criminal justice system, current state and territory legislation that do not conform to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 37 and 40, needs to be amended. Furthermore,
The context in which the Australian Criminal Justice system has failed the people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands are significantly diverse. In the below summary I will highlight the current stressors in todays society which will correlate with those from the colonial era. Before the beginning of the European colonial era in 1788, Cunneen (2001), discusses one of the most crucial concern that has remained predominant and significantly controversial in the history of Australia is the issue of injustice, specifically when it comes to the level of integrity through which Indigenous peoples fundamental human rights are established.
By restricting judicial discretion, courts are prevented from considering a more suitable alternative to imprisonment when relevant as the principle requires mandatory incarceration. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘as of 30 June 2000 the imprisonment rate in the Northern Territory was 458.1 per 100,000… compared to a national imprisonment rate of 147.7 per 100,000.’ This increased rate of imprisonment in jurisdictions such as the northern territory, where mandatory sentencing laws are seen to operate at their harshest, provides evidence of the direct link between the mandatory sentencing principle and the rate of imprisonment. The increased rate of imprisonment puts strain on the tax payer funds that financially support the incarceration of offenders. Cases involving mandatory sentences see a significant reduction in guilty pleas as there is no possibility for the plea to reduce the offenders sentence (Law Council, 2017).
The perception of the Australian criminal justice system’s legitimacy is determined by the actions of three institutions, and the manner in which they address issues of justice within society. For the criminal justice system to be seen with integrity and valued for its role, it is vital that all members of the community see the appropriate rectification of injustices through the police, courts and corrections. However, particular groups within society encounter the illegitimacy and social inequity embedded within these institutions, diminishing the effectiveness to which they fulfill their role. For women in particular, the institutions of the criminal justice system are notably unethical in their treatment of both victims and perpetrators of crime. Despite many reforms and recommendations for change, the criminal justice system ultimately fails in achieving justice for women, with the courts demonstrating the most significant attempt to eliminate social inequality and victimisation.
However, under further analysis, it becomes apparent that the verdict acts more as a deterrent rather than an upstanding legal configuration. The legal system, for the average person in New South Wales, is only a figure of authority that deters the individuals from breaking the law, which some may say is what it is there to do. Conversely, we need it to do more than that, we need it to properly meet our requests when we are involved in legal
For centuries governments have acted on behalf of society removing and punishing criminals with the goal of protecting its citizens. Criminals were arrested and locked-up in jails awaiting their sentencing. Once sentenced, they were publically humiliated, tortured, or killed. Early forms punishments were cruel and mostly focused on retribution.
Indigenous Australians remain largely overrepresented in all aspects of the Criminal Justice system. However, in the sentencing context Australian Courts have been reluctant to accept that Aboriginality per se is a mitigating factor. It is often argued that given the level of disadvantage and the effects of colonisation, Aboriginality remains an important consideration. Indeed, Courts have taken disadvantage arising from Aboriginality into account many times. This has particularly been the case following the findings of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in