The Issue Of One Punch

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.

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

Despite some recent reforms, there are still criticisms to be made of the current law

The problems surrounding the criminal justice system range from a variety of issues in different areas of the system. But i believe they are all connected back to a societal problem, that has to do with a outdated philosophical notion “redemptive violence”. I will break down each aspect, which i find most troubling. I will cover problems between policing and peacekeeping, corrections options, and the issue of redemptive violence which is a major issue in the philosophy of the criminal justice system. These issues represent problems that have always been key topics when discussing problems of ethics in criminal justice. Policing and Peacekeeping are roles that have long been debated in usefulness to stopping crime. Corrections comes with the reality of incarceration having little chance of success but more likely a higher rate of recidivism. I well also touch on briefly the issues of attorney discretion. While the issue of redemptive violence ties them all in, As i well show this philosophy is the “root of all evil” in the issues facing the criminal justice system.

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

“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

‘A Peacemaking Approach to Criminology’ was written by Louis J. Gesualdi, and published in 2013. It contains a review of different writings, which relate to criminology. The main argument of Gesualdi lies in promoting a humane way of handling crime and deviants. The book proposes a peaceable way of dealing with offenders in a manner that accords respect to human rights. Further, Gesualdi notes that the criminal justice system is concentrated on inflicting harm on the offenders by punishing them. He argues that the system is fixated on the notion of reacting to crime rather than prevention. Hence, the book proposes an approach where restorative justice and prevention of crime can be accommodated in the criminal justice system. The main

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.

Enhanced Sentencing Provisions has been speculated by many academics and scholars alike to be the demise of hate crime legislation, however, The Law Commission have stated that “a new sentencing approach guidance would be adopted with more robust recording practice of enhanced sentencing cases would address the provision’s shortcomings.” Nonetheless, the vast and capricious nature of the Criminal Justice System with respect to their limitations and the subsequent impact on the victims of hate crimes can unfortunately mean that their engagement with it as a person who has been affected by the crime committed has potential to do more harm than good.

Outside, a middle aged man walks outside from the back entrance after a long day at work. As he moves through the back alley, a swift cracking noise echoes the area. He drops on the ground, instantly going into a state of unconsciousness as cackling and footsteps run away from him. This horrible scenario has been occurring for the past few years in various urban areas to people who seem “vulnerable.” This “knock out game” has various methods of operation but for the most part, “…it typically involves either one forceful punch to the head or a more generalized assault to a random individual (typically standing or walking alone) without any warning or provocation, and without any ulterior motive such as theft or retaliation” (Zonfrillo,

The death penalty is escaping the decisive cost-benefit analysis to which every other program is being put in times of austerity. Rather than being posed as a single, but costly, alternative in a spectrum of approaches to crime, the death penalty operates at the extremes of political rhetoric. Candidates use the death

In this essay I will be discussing both the pros and cons of re-establishing capital punishment into the UK justice system. Capital punishment, abolished in 1965 is the punishment by euthanising a criminal. There have been many debates of whether or not capital punishment should be re-introduced. I will focus mostly on the positive outcomes of re-introducing this punishment, for this is where my ideologies lie. I believe that the death penalty should be re–introduced into the UK to prevent crimes from being committed which will decrease crime rates, to provide a better justice for the victim and the victim’s family and to reduce over population in prisons.

More discriminate use of the death penalty — reserving its use for only highly aggravated crimes, the ‘worst of the worst’ — will lessen the risk of flawed convictions and sentences and ensure that those who really deserve to be on death row will be executed. [There shouldn’t be restriction to the death penalty because] … the capital punishment system will remain flawed and it is more likely that less-deserving or innocent prisoners will be convicted and put on death row. (Robinson par. 7)

The 1861 Act is widely criticised for being archaic and unclear, it is in urgent need of reform. It is hoped that after the change have

The Supreme Court case, R v Murray[4], states that the appellant pleaded not guilty to one charge of murder – where the appellant was found guilty of manslaughter – where, although the appellant intended to kill the deceased, he was only criminally responsible for manslaughter because of provocation under section 304[5] - where the appellant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment under section 161B[6] - where there was a declaration that the applicant had been convicted of a serious violence offence. Where the case R v McDougall and Collas[7] was applied as a precedent to the final decision of the case.