Reforming The Bail Act 1978 (NSW)

Parole in the United States is, in essence, a contract between the state and the offender. While every state has its own policies and procedures, parole usually lasts more than two but less than seven years (Latessa & Smith, 2015, p. 108). If over the course of their parole, the offender is able to abide by the terms of this contract - or parole conditions - their freedom will continue to be maintained. These conditions may include such items as living within state or county lines, meeting regularly with a parole officer, submitting to drug and alcohol tests, and providing proof of residence and employment (Parole & Probation). If a parolee does not follow their prescribed conditions, they may

For example there have been amendments in under provision of crimes amendment act 1982 in New South Wales and section 8 of the crimes amendment act 1986 in Victoria to enable judges to impose less severe sentencing. Also in Victoria and South Australia life sentencing prisoners can apply for minimum set terms in court. Of course it relies on their good behaviour, but punishment does not help in changing their criminal attitude or behaviour. Though abolition of prison is not something can be achieved overnight, of course it is a very long term goal. We have example of Sydney siege, the worst offenders should be behind the bars to protect society. An article by Carol Lawson outlines the strategies for reducing recidivism by focusing on reforming prisons conditions and to turn them into more rehabilitative place, encourage prisoners’ transition to society that is to support ‘throughcare programs’ and to divert offenders from prisons to alternative punishment. Self- report also helps to measure the level of stress and discomfort of prisoners in

Indefinite detention is an extremely controversial issue consisting of valid arguments on both sides of the debate; however, Queensland’s Dangerous Prisoners (Sex Offenders) Act 2003, including the amendment made to it in 2009 and part 10 of the Penalties and Sentences act 1992 (Qld) all provide a desirable outcome. These laws are scrutinized by many but evidently all contribute to the equitable way that this system functions. Although on the face of it, indefinitely detaining a prisoner may be perceived by some as infringing the fundamental rules of law, in reality extensive measures are taken through the legislative processes of these laws to ensure that a just decision is made in respects to the continuation of a detention order. By doing

Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on

Prior to 28th January 2015, bail laws posed significant loopholes in the system and are deemed to be ineffective to achieve justice. Accused offenders may get away with bail based with evidence in the case if it does not seem to pose a threat to the community. The problem persists within the conditions set for their bail, as responsibility lies upon the magistrate or police to impose appropriate conditions. However, though conditions do vary, it possesses a significant risk if the conditions enforced were not strict enough, opening vulnerabilities for the accused to commit another crime, slipping through their enforced conditions.

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.

Once an offender is put into jail, they can be bailed out. Normally post bail is

Bail Reform Act of 1984 History 1) Judiciary Act of 1789 <ul> <li> Defined bailable offenses and established judicial limits on setting bail <li> All noncapital offenses were bailable <li> Bail was left to the discretion of the federal judge </ul> 2) Bail Reform Act of 1966 <ul> <li> Established a statutory presumption in favor of pretrial release in all noncapital cases <li> Primarily concerned with defendant's flight <li> Attempt to set reasonable conditions of pretrial release and eliminate bond requirements <li> Failed to address crimes committed by those awaiting trial </ul> 3) D.C Court Reform and Criminal Procedures Act of 1970 <ul> <li> First federal attempt to define eligibility for pretrial release

Now this act helped form the United States Sentencing Commision which was an independent commision in the judicial branch of the Unites States. Now the Sentencing Commission was in charge of creating sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system. In line with Sentencing Reform Act this will increase prison overcrowding. This overcrowding has led to many unsanitary and horrendous conditions that the inmates have to live in. “Under the Act, fewer convicted criminals will be sentenced to probation. Only those few with a minimum guideline sentence of zero to six months will be eligible for probation. As a result of the Guidelines, some ninety percent of defendants sentenced in federal court will go to prison” Stanley A. Weigel. (1988).

The classical perspective founded by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham; stated that at people choose to commit crime after they considered the pros and cons that could be associated with a crime, and believed that the pros outweighed the cons (Tonry,2014). The theory relied on deterring criminal acts by assuring that the consequences of crime are absolute, harsh, and quickly administered (Tonry,2014).

Similar to the Sentencing Reform Act, the purpose of the United States Sentencing Commission is to prevent inequity of sentencing among federal judges. It’s role is to serve as a strict guideline for Judges to adhere and limits the discretion at which a Judge may alter the length of sentence. The goal of this commission is to hamper factors such as race, sex, socioeconomic status, etc to affect the length of sentence, and aims for the guideline to stand on a neutral ground.

The Sentencing Reform Act is associated with the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, were the U.S. federal statute increased the consistency in the United States federal sentencing. The Sentencing Reform Act created the United States Sentencing Commission. This act allowed the independent commission into the judicial branch of the United States Sentencing Commission. It consists of seven voting members and one nonvoting member. For the sake of the United States Sentencing Commission, there are regulations that establish sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal justice system, which ensures a meeting of the purposes of sentencing. Judges are also bestowed the power to determine the legitimacy of convictions. The aspiration of the Sentence Reform Act was to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar criminal conduct Also to allow the Judicial system to process....

Prior to the amendment of the Sentencing Reforming Act, Federal Judges had the freedom of imposing different length of sentence for each criminal. This resulted in a disparity among inmates on the length of time served. To prevent this, the sole purpose of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was to revise the federal criminal sentencing policy into a uniform guideline. The aim is to maintain integrity in the length of sentence in the justice system for each inmate, while providing judges the freedom to manipulate the length of sentence to better fit the crime.

The administration of criminal justice and the operation of criminal process play an important role in our ever-changing society. The current structure of the New South Wales criminal justice system, as described by leading critic Doreen McBarnet as the ‘two tiers of justice’, has attracted many critiques namely the ideology of triviality, summary offence punishment and other legal notions such as technocratic justice. I have applied the above concepts during the course of my observation to Local, District and Supreme Courts of New South Wales in April 2016. The following report will assess the validity of the above concepts at a practical level in light with my observation and research, drawing intrinsic links between two tiers of justice and technocratic justice, and concluding with the two tiers of justice as a necessary framework in our modern criminal justice system.

The Australian criminal justice system acknowledges the immaturity of young offenders compared with that of adult offenders, and thus impose system in which their crimes are dealt with. A criminal conviction relies upon a two-fold basis whereby the actus rea and mens rea must be proved, however young offenders are treated with a different level of responsibility as they have not reached adulthood. Referred to as juvenile justice, offenders under the age of 18 are recognised as requiring a greater level of protection and assistance due to their state of dependancy. Such programs are specifically geared to protect young offenders and aim to deal with youth in a more effective manner due to their increased vulnerable state.This protection is consistent throughout the criminal trial process and covers all stages starting from acknowledging the age of responsibility.