In recent years the Australian criminal justice system has come under fire in relation to its effectiveness in dealing with criminal trials. There have been instances where barristers have used ruthless techniques to intimidate witnesses on the stand to try and either decrease their reliability or scare them into not presenting evidence, also because Australia has no bill of rights there is not one piece of statute law that says the rights of the accused and so they are constantly having their rights encroached upon yet, nothing is being done about it because it’s so hard to find out what these rights are. The need for juries and their effectiveness has come under fire from the Australian public because they often make ill informed decisions or give convictions just to resume their normal lives as fast as possible, this is where the question of compulsory jury service is asked and the legal system is finding it hard to justify their need. The effectiveness of Australian criminal trials is also hampered by the high standard of proof which has to be met by the prosecution if they want any chance of conviction, this standard of proof has seen many guilty men and women walk free because the DPP has no evidence to present strong enough to meet the standard of proof. As yet, the Australian constitution contains no Bill of Rights.
The non-fatal offences against the person have been subjected to frequent criticism. Explain and discuss these criticisms and suggest what reforms might be desirable. The Offences against the person Act 1861 covers non-fatal offences. Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) is Section 47 of this Act. The Actus Reus needed is ABH, defined in case law as anything that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim.
There was no national court system to settle interstate disputes, forcing settlements to occur in the courts of one of the states involved. Also, propositions for new laws had to be approved by all thirteen states, often resulting in divided votes making progress difficult. The value of the national currency quickly depreciated as the states began to print their own money, eventually harming interstate trade. The American market was soon flooded with European goods while hefty tariffs and trade restrictions were imposed on many products being exported from the United States. The weak and divided economy kept the United States
LSTD503 Criminal Justice Process THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE: A NEED FOR CHANGE Sophia D. Flowers-Hollis Spring 2014 The Exclusionary Rule: A Need for Change The exclusionary rule has been a highly debated topic within our legal system as it has come into conflict with potential evidence that could possibly convict an individual to a jail sentence. Those who are against the exclusionary act believe that the act has no power in stopping unwarranted searches anyway and what the rule mainly does is let criminals go. Those who are for the exclusionary rule say that this is a protective right and is a right that is guaranteed to us through the constitution and should never be taken away. I am against the exclusionary rule. My research paper will argue that the exclusionary rule needs to be changed and although it is a right, federal and certain state laws should not be included with the exclusionary rule.
The excessive use of force by police officers continues because of overwhelming barrier to accountability. (Mclaughin). Police can only use the amount of force that is necessary to carry out their lawful duties. Any legal claim for “excessive force” must be based on injury resulting from force beyond whatever was necessary.(Sieminiski). According to the Justice Departments of Albuquerque, “The police departments failure to ensure that officers respect the Constitution undermines public trust.” (Mclaughin).
Threatening to harm him or someone else is completely different from trying to prevent a bigger crime from happening by committing an act. After a 10 year period of uncertainty of trying to decide whether duress was an acceptable defence in court the house of lords finally decided that it is not the most comprehensive test of this is illustrated in the case R V Graham 1982 this suggests the test can be applied in any situation despite this being a murder case. When defendant has arisen duress. The law on this can be different as these 2 issues coming up in court can make it illegal but cannot constitute a crime due extraordinary circumstances. Some courts look at the 2 of these and merge them into one defence.
In the past it has been found to not be covered by the first amendment because it is considered “unprotected”. There are four forms of speech that fall outside the protection of the first amendment, and therefore are outside the realm of absolute protection, “libel and slander, obscenity and pornography, fighting words, and commercial speech” (Lowi, 84). This is shown perfectly with the free speech principle. It has two main purposes that the Supreme Court established, “first, that free speech serves special and significant constitutional purposes and, second, that the First Amendment should not protect all speech but only speech of a certain quality” (Hall). Justice Frank Murphy says that they are all unprotected expressions because, “such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be
Handling evidence properly is one of the most crucial points of any investigation. Without even intentionally doing so, mishandling of evidence could mean a case thrown out of court. Some types of mishandling of evidence would be planting of evidence, removing evidence, not following the chain of custody and unlawfully obtaining evidence. Rape cases should involve specially trained individuals, if an untrained investigator was to handle a rape case the way a homicide case was handled even more issues can arise. Reducing Ethical Considerations From arrival at a crime scene the investigator must follow only the facts and remove any emotion from considerations.
Mandatory sentencing in Australia has been described as an undercut of the justice system, with considerable arguments that imposing mandatory sentences for serious sex and violent crimes would severely undermine judge’s authority, thus it being condemned by most judiciaries. According to the first article titled ‘Lucas must reject fixed jail terms’, Mr Potts talks about how some would argue that mandatory sentencing emasculates a judge’s discretion, claiming that justice must be individual or it is not justice at all. “A standard minimum non-parole period for certain serious crimes conceal a harsh reality – it means judges have no say or influence in determining a sentence.” B. Potts 2011 In all fairness, any person who believes committing a serious offence such as rape or armed robbery is acceptable must be dealt with to the full extent of the law, and a mandatory minimum sentence would surely be a deterrent. However, this type of sentencing could pose a problem. Supporters of mandatory sentencing believe it reduces crime and ensures consistency in sentencing.
The fact that officers know that illegally obtained (but true) evidence will quite possibly be thrown out, and therefore dangerous criminals will be freed, will encourage them to follow the proper procedures. (Woodfin, 2009) In addition, there are already several exceptions to requiring a warrant, such as “stop-and-frisk”, airport and school searches, voluntary searches, and emergency situations (Scheb, 2008) While these arguments supported the continued use of the exclusionary rule, there are also many argue against its value to our criminal justice system. One of the most