The Criminal Justice system. (1 Viewer)

[Meldrum]

The CJS; explain.

 

[goan_crazy]

Effectiveness the Criminal Justice System

A random member posted up this:
Effectiveness the Criminal Justice System

Evaluate the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in achieving justice for individuals and society.

The Criminal Justice System (CJS) has been the subject of much criticism in the past. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the law, equality before the law, access to the law, enforceability of the law, protection of individual rights, resource efficiency and how the rights of individuals and society are balanced must be established.

For the CJS to act effectively, it must attempt to treat everyone equally, despite their income, sex, and lack of education, social status, age or ethnicity. If an individual is found to be discriminated against, then the system is deemed to have failed. Equality before the law has effectively adapted to suit changing attitudes and values of individuals and society.

Delays are one factor, which can determine whether or not the CJS is effective. The CJS often takes too long to finalise cases. In the case of Kerr, who was charged for manslaughter, after an unfortunate incident, which resulted in the death of Christopher Harris at the Redfern Railway station on October 27th 2002. Kerr was sentenced on February 24th 2004. Nearly a year and a half elapsed between the crime being committed and the offender being sentenced. This is similar in the case of R v Gonzales. Offence occurred in July of 2001, but was not sent to trial until 2004. Delays in the CJS, can result in the victim suffering ongoing trauma due to the offender being unpunished and witnesses may forget vital information, relevant to the case. Delays also place pursue on the public to have confidence on the CJS.

The CJS can be very costly. Many individuals cannot afford legal representation. In the case of Dietrich v the Queen, the high court recognised the need for adequate legal representation. In an attempt to redress inequalities of access to the legal system, Legal Aid provides cheap legal representation to people on limited income. However, Legal aid is not offered to everyone. In order to qualify for legal aid, individuals need to pass, a means test (level of income or assets) and merit test (matter is serious enough and likely to win).





Due to these extreme costs, and the inability to gain access to legal aid, many people are opting to represent themselves. To compensate for the increasing number of self represented accused, especially in sexual assault cases, the criminal procedure amendment (sexual offence) act 2003 NSW, prevents self represented accused from cross-examining victims. Instead, court officials will now ask questions on there behalf.

Lack of Knowledge of the legal system by self represented offenders, can result in an unfair trial, according to the SMH 21/2/02 article No lawyer, no worries as judges seek a fair go for those who go it alone, “the chief Justice of the Family court is ready to through a life line to self represented litigants my loosening the rules of evidence.” Lack of legal representation can lead to inequalities in the law. This decision allows judges to ensure a fair trial is conducted, by giving assistance to unrepresented offenders.

In order for the CJS to be effective for both individuals and society, it should use its resources efficiently and not waste them. In the case of R v Fanando, tow cousins were served together in order to save money. The CJS has increasingly limited funds available. A majority of these funds are put towards police services, the courts and corrective services such as detection, conviction and punishment. If the CJS was indeed using its resources to the best of its ability, it should result in:
• Reduced crime rates
• Less repeat offenders (recidivism)
• Improved convictions and
• Fewer young people committing crimes.

It is often stated that the CJS would be more effective in punishment if it concentrated on prevention, stopping the crime before it is committed. Instead, the CJS objectives of punishment include:

Rehabilitation Changing the behaviour of an offender to what is socially acceptable. It focuses on the future behaviour of offenders who have been found guilty, making future crime less likely. For rehabilitation to be successful, it is vital the government spend money on programs e.g. drug and alcohol, to allow rehabilitation to take place.

Deterrence Punishment designed to discourage people from committing crimes by decreasing their willingness to break the law. There are two types, general deterrence, making an example of someone in order to deter others and specific deterrence, punishment handed down to criminals in order to deter them from committing the crime again. There is no evidence this works for serious crime or hardened criminals, but is usually effective for minor types of crime.

Retribution A means of revenge or payback to the offender for their crime. When a crime takes place, various groups in the community call appropriate punishment to be enforced. If the society sees the punishment as inadequate, society may resort to private revenge.

Incapacitation, A concept of making an offender incapable of committing further offences by detaining them at home or in prison. This protects the individuals and the society from certain offenders who may be harmful, or reoffend.

Reintegrative Shaming. A method that encourages offenders to confront their offences and experience shame because of the harm they have caused to others. It is an attempt to reestablish moral bonds with society.

The use of penalties can also result in more efficient spending of the CJS resources. Imprisonment is costly and it is important to establish alternative punishments. They provide relatively quick and cost effective results. These include
• Admonishments and other sanction for minor crimes
• Fines
• Probation orders
• Community service orders
• Home detention
• Periodic/weekend detention

For those awaiting trial, awaiting sentencing or are in the process of a trial, bail maybe granted. When judges/magistrates are determining bail, they must look at, the probability the offender will attend court, the type of offence committed, the interest of the offender and the protection and welfare of the victim, witness and society. Amendments to the bail act 1987-bail amendment (repeat offenders) Act NSW-is due to the Badatkos case, here he assaulted his wife, was let out on bail, killed his wife, let out on bail again and killed himself. These amendments make it harder for offenders to receive bail, resulting in increased numbers in the remand section of prisons and increased protection for society and the individual.

The rights of victim’s, is important in evaluating the effectiveness of the CJS in relation to the individual and society. All victims are entitled to compensation, Victims compensation Act 1996 NSW. However, in the case of Presland 2003, the victim’s family received the maximum possible, $50,000, whilst the offender was awarded $300,000 after suing a doctor and the department of health for releasing him from a mental institution. Victim’s compensation is deemed as ineffective, if the offender can gain more money then the victim and their family.

For aboriginal juvenile offenders, circle sentencing is a new method of punishment, which had proven to be quite effective. The ‘circle’ involved elders, victims, the prosecutor and the magistrate. It is cost effective and removes the need for lengthy court procedures.

For juvenile offenders aged between ten and fourteen, it is difficult to prove whether the child new what they were doing was against the law-doli incapax, such as the case of Corey Davis, who’s killer, a developmentally delayed ten year old boy was allowed to go free as the court could not determine if he was capable of forming the intent-mens rea. In the case of SLD, the youngest killer in Australia, the judge, James Wood, recommended the law be amended so that children, convicted of murder, can be detained till a later date, when a better assessment can be made of their psychological condition because the task of sentencing someone at such a young age is difficult, as it is not known whether he poses a dangerous threat of reoffending (weekend edition Aug 31-Sept 1 2002 Boy gets 20 years for girl’s savage killing). However, in SLD’s case, it was difficult to determine whether he posed a dangerous threat to the society of reoffending. He was sentenced for twenty years, with a non-parole period of ten years.

The Young Offenders act 1997 NSW introduced Youth Justice Conferencing, seen as the biggest reform in the Criminal justice process. The aim is to come to an agreement, which may include an apology, reparation, drug and alcohol rehabilitation or a penalty for the offence. Its effectiveness is limited as it is deemed unsuitable for a lot of violent offenders. The Children and young person’s (care and protection) act 1998, allows for a variety of alternative dispute resolution methods, in order to avoid court action.

The rights of society need to be balanced against the rights of the individual. The changing values and attitudes of society require legislative changes in order to maintain the effectiveness of the CJS. These changes should improve equality, accessibility, enforceability, the protection of individual rights, resource efficiency and the rights of individuals and society.

<3

 

[pig_93]

fark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Kutar Maggi]

A random member posted up this:
Effectiveness the Criminal Justice System

Evaluate the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System in achieving justice for individuals and society.

The Criminal Justice System (CJS) has been the subject of much criticism in the past. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the law, equality before the law, access to the law, enforceability of the law, protection of individual rights, resource efficiency and how the rights of individuals and society are balanced must be established.

For the CJS to act effectively, it must attempt to treat everyone equally, despite their income, sex, and lack of education, social status, age or ethnicity. If an individual is found to be discriminated against, then the system is deemed to have failed. Equality before the law has effectively adapted to suit changing attitudes and values of individuals and society.

Delays are one factor, which can determine whether or not the CJS is effective. The CJS often takes too long to finalise cases. In the case of Kerr, who was charged for manslaughter, after an unfortunate incident, which resulted in the death of Christopher Harris at the Redfern Railway station on October 27th 2002. Kerr was sentenced on February 24th 2004. Nearly a year and a half elapsed between the crime being committed and the offender being sentenced. This is similar in the case of R v Gonzales. Offence occurred in July of 2001, but was not sent to trial until 2004. Delays in the CJS, can result in the victim suffering ongoing trauma due to the offender being unpunished and witnesses may forget vital information, relevant to the case. Delays also place pursue on the public to have confidence on the CJS.

The CJS can be very costly. Many individuals cannot afford legal representation. In the case of Dietrich v the Queen, the high court recognised the need for adequate legal representation. In an attempt to redress inequalities of access to the legal system, Legal Aid provides cheap legal representation to people on limited income. However, Legal aid is not offered to everyone. In order to qualify for legal aid, individuals need to pass, a means test (level of income or assets) and merit test (matter is serious enough and likely to win).





Due to these extreme costs, and the inability to gain access to legal aid, many people are opting to represent themselves. To compensate for the increasing number of self represented accused, especially in sexual assault cases, the criminal procedure amendment (sexual offence) act 2003 NSW, prevents self represented accused from cross-examining victims. Instead, court officials will now ask questions on there behalf.

Lack of Knowledge of the legal system by self represented offenders, can result in an unfair trial, according to the SMH 21/2/02 article No lawyer, no worries as judges seek a fair go for those who go it alone, “the chief Justice of the Family court is ready to through a life line to self represented litigants my loosening the rules of evidence.” Lack of legal representation can lead to inequalities in the law. This decision allows judges to ensure a fair trial is conducted, by giving assistance to unrepresented offenders.

In order for the CJS to be effective for both individuals and society, it should use its resources efficiently and not waste them. In the case of R v Fanando, tow cousins were served together in order to save money. The CJS has increasingly limited funds available. A majority of these funds are put towards police services, the courts and corrective services such as detection, conviction and punishment. If the CJS was indeed using its resources to the best of its ability, it should result in:
• Reduced crime rates
• Less repeat offenders (recidivism)
• Improved convictions and
• Fewer young people committing crimes.

It is often stated that the CJS would be more effective in punishment if it concentrated on prevention, stopping the crime before it is committed. Instead, the CJS objectives of punishment include:

Rehabilitation Changing the behaviour of an offender to what is socially acceptable. It focuses on the future behaviour of offenders who have been found guilty, making future crime less likely. For rehabilitation to be successful, it is vital the government spend money on programs e.g. drug and alcohol, to allow rehabilitation to take place.

Deterrence Punishment designed to discourage people from committing crimes by decreasing their willingness to break the law. There are two types, general deterrence, making an example of someone in order to deter others and specific deterrence, punishment handed down to criminals in order to deter them from committing the crime again. There is no evidence this works for serious crime or hardened criminals, but is usually effective for minor types of crime.

Retribution A means of revenge or payback to the offender for their crime. When a crime takes place, various groups in the community call appropriate punishment to be enforced. If the society sees the punishment as inadequate, society may resort to private revenge.

Incapacitation, A concept of making an offender incapable of committing further offences by detaining them at home or in prison. This protects the individuals and the society from certain offenders who may be harmful, or reoffend.

Reintegrative Shaming. A method that encourages offenders to confront their offences and experience shame because of the harm they have caused to others. It is an attempt to reestablish moral bonds with society.

The use of penalties can also result in more efficient spending of the CJS resources. Imprisonment is costly and it is important to establish alternative punishments. They provide relatively quick and cost effective results. These include
• Admonishments and other sanction for minor crimes
• Fines
• Probation orders
• Community service orders
• Home detention
• Periodic/weekend detention

For those awaiting trial, awaiting sentencing or are in the process of a trial, bail maybe granted. When judges/magistrates are determining bail, they must look at, the probability the offender will attend court, the type of offence committed, the interest of the offender and the protection and welfare of the victim, witness and society. Amendments to the bail act 1987-bail amendment (repeat offenders) Act NSW-is due to the Badatkos case, here he assaulted his wife, was let out on bail, killed his wife, let out on bail again and killed himself. These amendments make it harder for offenders to receive bail, resulting in increased numbers in the remand section of prisons and increased protection for society and the individual.

The rights of victim’s, is important in evaluating the effectiveness of the CJS in relation to the individual and society. All victims are entitled to compensation, Victims compensation Act 1996 NSW. However, in the case of Presland 2003, the victim’s family received the maximum possible, $50,000, whilst the offender was awarded $300,000 after suing a doctor and the department of health for releasing him from a mental institution. Victim’s compensation is deemed as ineffective, if the offender can gain more money then the victim and their family.

For aboriginal juvenile offenders, circle sentencing is a new method of punishment, which had proven to be quite effective. The ‘circle’ involved elders, victims, the prosecutor and the magistrate. It is cost effective and removes the need for lengthy court procedures.

For juvenile offenders aged between ten and fourteen, it is difficult to prove whether the child new what they were doing was against the law-doli incapax, such as the case of Corey Davis, who’s killer, a developmentally delayed ten year old boy was allowed to go free as the court could not determine if he was capable of forming the intent-mens rea. In the case of SLD, the youngest killer in Australia, the judge, James Wood, recommended the law be amended so that children, convicted of murder, can be detained till a later date, when a better assessment can be made of their psychological condition because the task of sentencing someone at such a young age is difficult, as it is not known whether he poses a dangerous threat of reoffending (weekend edition Aug 31-Sept 1 2002 Boy gets 20 years for girl’s savage killing). However, in SLD’s case, it was difficult to determine whether he posed a dangerous threat to the society of reoffending. He was sentenced for twenty years, with a non-parole period of ten years.

The Young Offenders act 1997 NSW introduced Youth Justice Conferencing, seen as the biggest reform in the Criminal justice process. The aim is to come to an agreement, which may include an apology, reparation, drug and alcohol rehabilitation or a penalty for the offence. Its effectiveness is limited as it is deemed unsuitable for a lot of violent offenders. The Children and young person’s (care and protection) act 1998, allows for a variety of alternative dispute resolution methods, in order to avoid court action.

The rights of society need to be balanced against the rights of the individual. The changing values and attitudes of society require legislative changes in order to maintain the effectiveness of the CJS. These changes should improve equality, accessibility, enforceability, the protection of individual rights, resource efficiency and the rights of individuals and society.

<3

i had exactly the same thing planned but thats not what the question asked. it was a double individual.