Hello 
Would someone be able to have a look at me Young offenders essay; "Assess the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System when dealing with Young offenders" and give me a mark out of 15 please. Your help would really be appreciated thanks before hand
The criminal justice system (CJS) is a scale, which is continually reforming in an attempt to achieve justice for young offenders. However, achieving justice is a complex process and calls for continuous critical evaluations of the juvenile system and the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). In Australia the CJS aims to reduce recidivism and rehabilitate young offenders by enhancing a combination of both Welfare and Justice model. The effectiveness of the Children’s court established under the Children’s Court Act 1987 (NSW) has been limited due to it’s the uneven distribution of resources, which hence lead to ineffective outcomes for various offenders. Additionally, the sentencing process of the CJS, due to the substantial accessibility powers of judges and magistrates leads to inefficiencies in this system when dealing with young offenders, as evident in the case of RvSBF. Furthermore, the non-legal mechanism of the media has also complemented these inefficiencies due to its inability to protect individual rights, and therefore denying justice to young offenders.
The Children’s Court has been substantially ineffective, in dealing with Young Offenders due to its limited resource efficiency and accessibility. Despite being a specialist court that aims to offer rehabilitation and reduce recidivism by focusing on the needs of the offender, since there are only 7 Children’s courts, there are insufficient resources to respond to individual needs and protect the rights of offenders. This as a result leads to inefficiencies, according to the Australian the Law reform Commission Report: Children Protection and Criminal Law 2013, “the lack of resource efficiency of children’s courts has increased the average time spent in remand from 10days to 27days between 2011 to 2012, with a 32% increase in juvenile remand population. This exemplifies how limited resource efficiency results in time delays and thus restricts the effectiveness of the CJS to effectively deal with young offenders, as these individuals are not provided with effective accessibility. Additionally, according to the National Assessment of Children’s Courts 2014 “one of the greatest challenges that limits the effectiveness of the Children’s court is that there is a significant difference in resources available in terms of staff and courtrooms in various geographical locations which therefore affects court outcomes”. These reports demonstrate how the Children’s court has been inefficient in pursuing its goals of achieving rehabilitation as the limited resource efficiency and time delays have both contributed towards justice being denied for young offenders as not all of them get the right to a fair hearing due to the uneven distribution of resources.
The ability of the CJS to successfully sentence young offenders has been both ineffective in ensuring that justice is achieved by focusing on individual needs of the offender, whilst also being inconsistent with Australia’s enactment of the UNCROC. Under Article 37(b) of the UNCROC “the imprisonment of a child shall be used only as a measure of last resort for the shortest appropriate time,” nevertheless according to the Youth Detention Population in NSW report 2014 “about 978 young people were sentenced control orders on average in the June quarter in 2014”. This discrepancy between the international convention and the CJS depicts the limited effectiveness of this system when dealing with young offenders. As rather than being provided with the opportunity and mechanisms to rehabilitate the sentencing process focuses on endorsing the Justice model and reattributing these offenders for their offences, therefore signifying how this system has been ineffective due to its inability to protect and meet the needs of individuals.
Additionally the discretionary powers provided to magistrates under the Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) has also contributed towards generating inefficiencies for the CJS, as their substantial accessibility powers may lead to a conflict of interest, between protecting the rights of the offender and achieving justice for the victim. This notion can be exemplified in the R v SBF (2009), in which a driving offence on the 6th of November 2006 resulted in the deaths of a 16 and 17 year old. The offender was 17 years old at the time of the offence and was sentenced to seven years and 10months on imprisonment. On appeal the district ruled that the “sentence was excessively harsh”, however the CCA overturned the appeal stating, “the grief and loss consequent upon these deaths and injuries can barely be imagined, but some idea can be gained from the victim impact material”. Whilst, this decision successfully protected the rights of the victim it failed to effectively deal with the offender, by failing to take into consideration s6 of the this act, which requires the law to aim to not interrupt the education of the child, and announcing punishments that can be completed in the resides of their home. Therefore it is apparent that the legal system has been ineffective in dealing with young offenders as its substantial accessibility may lead to difficulties in balancing the rights of the offender against the victim due to conflicting interests.
The ineffectiveness of the CJS in dealing with young offenders has been complemented with the non-legal mechanism of the media, which is biased towards protecting the rights and achieving just outcomes for the victim, and hence in its pursuit often neglects and violates the rights of the offender. As evident in the R v LMW, which involved LMW drowning victim Corey Davis. The media failed to protect the rights of the individual by denying him the human freedom and dignity as it aimed to encourage societal outrage regarding the acquittal due to the principal of doli incapax, which leads to conclusive presumption. With newspapers carrying headings such as “I pushed him so what?” and “Boy told bad luck, then thrown in river”. These highly sensationalized articles presented the accused as a murderer and manipulated society to affirm LMW as a criminal. In 1999 World Socialist Website published an article, which commented on the profound effects the media coverage had on the accused. He “was afraid to go to sleep and would not venture outside his house”. This exemplifies the emotional distress the media caused upon the young offender, as this inhumane treatment denied him to the fundamental human right under Article2 ICESCR, which allows “all to live without discrimination”. The media’s failure in protecting individual rights highlights its ineffectiveness in achieving justice for young offenders.
In conclusion it is evident that the CJS has held limited effectiveness when dealing with young offenders. In order to successfully protect the rights of these offenders “The Australian” recommends, “that there should be more resources allocated towards increasing the training and efficiency of all Children’s courts, especially those in non-metropolitan areas, and providing more rehabilitation facilities, opposed to relying on remand. As a greater proportion of offenders on remand tend to reoffend.” Therefore in order to improve the effectiveness of the CJS there is imperative need for critical evaluations and law reforms to ensure justice is achieved for the young offender.
Would someone be able to have a look at me Young offenders essay; "Assess the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System when dealing with Young offenders" and give me a mark out of 15 please. Your help would really be appreciated thanks before hand
The criminal justice system (CJS) is a scale, which is continually reforming in an attempt to achieve justice for young offenders. However, achieving justice is a complex process and calls for continuous critical evaluations of the juvenile system and the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). In Australia the CJS aims to reduce recidivism and rehabilitate young offenders by enhancing a combination of both Welfare and Justice model. The effectiveness of the Children’s court established under the Children’s Court Act 1987 (NSW) has been limited due to it’s the uneven distribution of resources, which hence lead to ineffective outcomes for various offenders. Additionally, the sentencing process of the CJS, due to the substantial accessibility powers of judges and magistrates leads to inefficiencies in this system when dealing with young offenders, as evident in the case of RvSBF. Furthermore, the non-legal mechanism of the media has also complemented these inefficiencies due to its inability to protect individual rights, and therefore denying justice to young offenders.
The Children’s Court has been substantially ineffective, in dealing with Young Offenders due to its limited resource efficiency and accessibility. Despite being a specialist court that aims to offer rehabilitation and reduce recidivism by focusing on the needs of the offender, since there are only 7 Children’s courts, there are insufficient resources to respond to individual needs and protect the rights of offenders. This as a result leads to inefficiencies, according to the Australian the Law reform Commission Report: Children Protection and Criminal Law 2013, “the lack of resource efficiency of children’s courts has increased the average time spent in remand from 10days to 27days between 2011 to 2012, with a 32% increase in juvenile remand population. This exemplifies how limited resource efficiency results in time delays and thus restricts the effectiveness of the CJS to effectively deal with young offenders, as these individuals are not provided with effective accessibility. Additionally, according to the National Assessment of Children’s Courts 2014 “one of the greatest challenges that limits the effectiveness of the Children’s court is that there is a significant difference in resources available in terms of staff and courtrooms in various geographical locations which therefore affects court outcomes”. These reports demonstrate how the Children’s court has been inefficient in pursuing its goals of achieving rehabilitation as the limited resource efficiency and time delays have both contributed towards justice being denied for young offenders as not all of them get the right to a fair hearing due to the uneven distribution of resources.
The ability of the CJS to successfully sentence young offenders has been both ineffective in ensuring that justice is achieved by focusing on individual needs of the offender, whilst also being inconsistent with Australia’s enactment of the UNCROC. Under Article 37(b) of the UNCROC “the imprisonment of a child shall be used only as a measure of last resort for the shortest appropriate time,” nevertheless according to the Youth Detention Population in NSW report 2014 “about 978 young people were sentenced control orders on average in the June quarter in 2014”. This discrepancy between the international convention and the CJS depicts the limited effectiveness of this system when dealing with young offenders. As rather than being provided with the opportunity and mechanisms to rehabilitate the sentencing process focuses on endorsing the Justice model and reattributing these offenders for their offences, therefore signifying how this system has been ineffective due to its inability to protect and meet the needs of individuals.
Additionally the discretionary powers provided to magistrates under the Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) has also contributed towards generating inefficiencies for the CJS, as their substantial accessibility powers may lead to a conflict of interest, between protecting the rights of the offender and achieving justice for the victim. This notion can be exemplified in the R v SBF (2009), in which a driving offence on the 6th of November 2006 resulted in the deaths of a 16 and 17 year old. The offender was 17 years old at the time of the offence and was sentenced to seven years and 10months on imprisonment. On appeal the district ruled that the “sentence was excessively harsh”, however the CCA overturned the appeal stating, “the grief and loss consequent upon these deaths and injuries can barely be imagined, but some idea can be gained from the victim impact material”. Whilst, this decision successfully protected the rights of the victim it failed to effectively deal with the offender, by failing to take into consideration s6 of the this act, which requires the law to aim to not interrupt the education of the child, and announcing punishments that can be completed in the resides of their home. Therefore it is apparent that the legal system has been ineffective in dealing with young offenders as its substantial accessibility may lead to difficulties in balancing the rights of the offender against the victim due to conflicting interests.
The ineffectiveness of the CJS in dealing with young offenders has been complemented with the non-legal mechanism of the media, which is biased towards protecting the rights and achieving just outcomes for the victim, and hence in its pursuit often neglects and violates the rights of the offender. As evident in the R v LMW, which involved LMW drowning victim Corey Davis. The media failed to protect the rights of the individual by denying him the human freedom and dignity as it aimed to encourage societal outrage regarding the acquittal due to the principal of doli incapax, which leads to conclusive presumption. With newspapers carrying headings such as “I pushed him so what?” and “Boy told bad luck, then thrown in river”. These highly sensationalized articles presented the accused as a murderer and manipulated society to affirm LMW as a criminal. In 1999 World Socialist Website published an article, which commented on the profound effects the media coverage had on the accused. He “was afraid to go to sleep and would not venture outside his house”. This exemplifies the emotional distress the media caused upon the young offender, as this inhumane treatment denied him to the fundamental human right under Article2 ICESCR, which allows “all to live without discrimination”. The media’s failure in protecting individual rights highlights its ineffectiveness in achieving justice for young offenders.
In conclusion it is evident that the CJS has held limited effectiveness when dealing with young offenders. In order to successfully protect the rights of these offenders “The Australian” recommends, “that there should be more resources allocated towards increasing the training and efficiency of all Children’s courts, especially those in non-metropolitan areas, and providing more rehabilitation facilities, opposed to relying on remand. As a greater proportion of offenders on remand tend to reoffend.” Therefore in order to improve the effectiveness of the CJS there is imperative need for critical evaluations and law reforms to ensure justice is achieved for the young offender.
