The Act 1958 ( Vic ) And The Sentencing Amendment

Although most people agree that offenders of the “king hit” should receive extreme punishments, there may also be other factors to take into account such as, offenders may not be aware of the consequences, prison sentencing is too harsh and alcohol and drugs that contribute for the offenders actions.

Through bail, the accused is granted provisional release pending a trial, if refused, the individual is placed on remand. The legislation governing the processes of bail is the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) - commencement as of the 20/5/14, reforming the Bail Act 1978 (NSW), which was repealed. The reform was prompted due to the tension the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) raised, becoming so complex, through the several amendments modifying the presumption for bail, that legal practitioners were sometimes not able to comprehend it, limiting is accessibility, with almost 25% of the prison population being held in remand. This figure is highlighted through the 2011 NSW law reform commission. To respond, the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) was implemented, which replaced the presumption

The ‘one punch’ (King hits) would be paramount in their minds because without any doubt, these one punch incidents would be alcohol/drug related. An example of the societal mood and behaviourism is evident throughout the Liquor Amendment Bill 2014 Legislation Debate, when Mr. David Shoebridge exclaims that “This is the bill that expands the regime of mandatory sentencing here in New South Wales. It also puts in place effectively a strict liability offence for these one-punch laws.” It are incidents like these that are not because of one drink, it’s from prolong drinking. These people are very intoxicated, and this amendment is essentially targeting people to prevent getting into this state of mind, and minimise the causation of public disorders.

The first section is for the mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison for first and second-degree murder and treason. The second section deals with firearms offences. The third section of mandatory minimum sentences address repeat offenders in seven distinct categories, which involve impaired driving and possession of unauthorized weapons (Canada, 2013). The last category of MMS in Canada deals with hybrid offences. These were implemented in the Canadian legislation in 1995. If an offender commits a crime that has been determined to result in a mandatory minimum sentence within the Canadian Legislation, the judge must implement that sentence no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors are. Due to this sentencing legislation, many innocent people are serving time in prison due to a false conviction and the lack of judicial discretion in their individual case. Even though mandatory minimum sentences offer more costs then rewards, some politicians, community members and victims of crime still support it due to the proposed retributive and deterrent effects. There have been many cases and arguments against mandatory minimum sentences especially due to the fact that it restricts the judge’s discretion during the sentencing process. These will be discussed in more depth throughout this paper.

Despite recent reforms on the law of murder and voluntary manslaughter; including the special defence of diminished responsibility and loss of control, there are still inconsistencies present making the law unsatisfactory. This area of the law is in ‘dire need of reform’; as pointed out by the Law Commission in their 2006 report; Murder, Manslaughter and infanticide. The report stated how ‘The Law governing homicide in England and Wales is a rickety structure built upon shaky foundations.’

Capital Punishment was abolished “under Harold Wilson’s Labour government in 1969” (Manton.K, 2011, P.16) in the United Kingdom, but there have been continuing debates concerning the reinstatement of the death penalty in the UK.(BBC NEWS, 2011) reports that the Conservative party MP calls for submission on capital punishment in the UK. The Brigg and Goole MP “is one of a number of Tory backbenchers calling for a commons debate of the return of capital punishment.”(BBC NEWS, 5th August 2011) Currently, Paul Staines, who writes the Guido Fawkes ‘ calls for the death to be brought back for child and police officer murderers,” he carried out a public opinion poll, which recommends that around half the population want capital punishment to be reinstated for murders ‘ this rises to 60% when it comes to child or police officer kills’, furthermore his e-petition on the government website needs ‘100,000 people to support’ it so that there could possibly be a preliminary debate on the issue (BBC NEWS, 4th August 2011). As Mr. Staines statistics poll shows, in 2011 that there is a high percent of the public that requests capital punishment to be reinstated in the UK for serious crimes such as; murder, child murder and police officer kills.

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).

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.

The mandatory sentence of two years’ imprisonment is unconstitutional because it is “cruel and unusual punishment” which infringes upon the accused’s right not to be subjected to such treatment. Firstly, it is determined that the mandatory minimum sentence in this case is grossly disproportionate to the accused’s circumstances and would be reasonably foreseeable that the provision would have the same overreaching effect on other offenders. Secondly, the provision in question in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not saved by section 1 of the Charter as it has failed the prescribed Oakes test. The test gives weight to the law’s objective in comparison to the means of achieving it, which in this case, impaired too heavily on the right of the accused.

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

Statistical elaboration has shown that decreasing the prison population does not affect the well being of the community. Diminishing overcrowding within our jails should be of great importance for state administrations. Our President Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into effect in 2010. The method must be two-fold: first, understand how the Fair Sentencing Act works, and second, put a greater emphasis on the recommendations given in reducing the disparity in sentencing.

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....

In this essay, I will discuss what type of conduct I believe should be criminalised and why this is so. Because criminalisation stigmatizes individuals, it is something that we should be careful with. Being labelled as a murderer has a very high impact on one’s life, whether it is to find a job, a home or just to create relationships; people get blamed for being wrongdoers. Therefore, I believe that offensive conduct should not be criminalised, most of the time at least. The mere judgement of something to be “offensive” is subjective; who is to decide what is offensive and what is not? To criminalise harm done to others, I agree, as does mostly everyone else; it is very uncontroversial as a principle. Indeed, even though there is two views of the harm principle which I will discuss later on, intellectuals agree that this type of conduct should be prohibited. For what other types of conduct should be criminalised, I share Feinberg 's view that other principles never justify criminalization.

Access to justice is an issue for those in society who do not have the financial means to effectively obtain a judicial remedy or enforce their legal rights in court. Such citizens require financial assistance to be able to afford the necessary legal assistance required to ensure that a fair trial takes place. In this essay, firstly there will be a discussion on the importance of access to legal aid to assist citizens who are not on state benefits, but lack the financial means (hereafter, vulnerable citizens) to obtain the necessary legal advice, support and representation (hereafter, legal assistance) in order to effectively access justice through the courts. The discussion will involve establishing the importance of access to legal aid for justice to effectively be accessed by vulnerable citizens. Secondly, there will be a discussion on the impact that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (hereafter, LASPO Act) has had on access to justice and access to courts for vulnerable citizens. Legal aid is a necessary mechanism to ensure that vulnerable citizens can obtain the necessary legal assistance for justice to effectively be accessed through the courts. Since it gives vulnerable citizens a reasonable opportunity to present their case and obtain a fair outcome from the court.

The modern day legal system has caused a curious discourse regarding the separation of violence and the implementation of the law. Robert Cover proposes that the legal interpretation of the law, coercion, and violence, are not as separate as many might believe. In fact, he argues that they overlap to the point where they become indistinguishable from one another. I will briefly discuss the relationship between law and violence according to Robert Cover to show that he does not believe the two concepts are mutually exclusive. I will then address the idea of capital punishment as both a physical and systemic violence done by the law and will continue by discussing sites of legal and physical violence with the problem of mass incarceration. Legal violence is not a unique form of violence that exists above the law, instead it is merely another form of violence because it still involves the neglect or harm of an another individual.