It is clear that under statute law, no right or even desire for fair access to justice exists. This is in direct contrast to the rich history of the common law right to procedural fairness, and the right to a fair trial implied by Chapter III of the Australian Constitution. The question that must be asked is why this is allowed to occur. The simple answer is the unfortunate truth of representative democracy, what is believed by the majority is not necessarily morally right. As said by the Honourable Justice Michael Kirby; Majorities can certainly err.
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms offer many advantages for Aboriginal people over traditional court proceedings. “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities should be able to implement models in their own communities, which recognise traditional cultural values and traditional structures of decision making.” (Behrendt 1995, p.6) Behrendt also argues that alternative methods of dispute resolution should be developed that embody the cultural values of Indigenous people and are perceived as acceptable by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, these would be ideally and necessarily be developed by the Aboriginal communities themselves. “In Australia, Indigenous peoples recognise that real change in our situation requires a fundamental shift in the structures of power which will allow Indigenous people to regain control over their own lives.” (Poynton 1994, p.68) Dodson who is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner also argues “Genuine change will only occur when there is a genuine redistribution of
Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that are believed to belong to all human beings. Australia has many ways of promoting and enforcing human rights these include international treaties, common and statute law and the constitution. The effectiveness of Australia in promoting and enforcing human rights is shown through the way Australia has responded to the need for law, the way they have enforced the law and how it has protected individual rights The Constitution plays two important roles in protecting human rights. It lays down the system of Australian government i.e. division of powers - federal, state and local and separation of powers - legislative, judicial and executive and it protects specific human rights, including
Conclusion -> draw together main ideas/arguments An outsider does not fit into society and they will do what they see to be right. Although the legal system is meant to be fair, it is only fair to society. If some one is different society tries to outcast them. More often than not, justice does not reach as far as the outsider. Justice is what is seen to be right and just by society and this means that society is catered for.
True Blue? On Being Australian "Australia needs sudden shocks of reorientation within its society that will divorce it from the largely irrelevant problems of the British, make it possible to speed necessary changes and to develop some new sense of identity, some public feeling of being a people who can be described - even if incorrectly - as such-and-such a kind of nation, and act at times as if it were so. Australians are anonymous, featureless, nothing-men. This modest anonymity reveals itself in the argument that Australia does not run to the kind of person we could turn into a president. "Donald Horne - 1964 Australia is a country filled with so much multiculturalism that it is often hard to distinguish what qualities and values
Is Australia a racist country? Many believe that Australia is a racist country, but what is the true definition of ‘racism’? Dictionaries have a common definition which is “the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior”. Racism is a sensitive subject, where language plays an important role and even though some people in Australia are racist that doesn’t mean that the whole country should be labelled as racist. Different aspects can explain why we are not racist, for example our past shouldn’t affect our future, we do have different policies for immigrants and refugees and lastly Australia does respect and support Aboriginal and foreign people.
Evaluate the ethics of cyber law in Australia The concept of cyber law in Australia is subject to a wide range of controversy, due to the lack of privacy offered to the individuals of Australia. Policies regarding cyber law in Australia are very narrow, and often do not provide the adequate amount of privacy and security to users in Australia, thus providing a motive for the necessity of an alteration of cyber law in Australia. The definition of cyber law is the term that encapsulates the legal issues related to the use of the internet or technological interactions. The ethics and legal issues surrounding cyber laws in Australia are in the focus of privacy issues today. The leading factors of concern related to the current cyber law policies in Australia, and all across the world, include the lack of privacy offered to users of the internet, insignificant means being taken to protect users from cyber threats, the lack of protection against cyber bullying and the rising hazard of cyber-crime due to a deficiency of sufficient protection against cyber-criminals.
However there is growing conflict about the practice. Since public space “ …is landscaped, bounded, and controlled space,” its uses are normalized. [1] Graffiti constitutes damage. Which is defined as, “ permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness.”[2] Furthermore, the criminal aspect that is coupled with the normalization of public space causes a moral panic. This is said to be a “reaction to a pattern of behavior that is seen as violating accepted norms or laws is disproportional to the threat posed then the behavior in question.”[3] The reaction is disproportionate because the aesthetic and cultural aspects of graffiti are set aside for the criminal code.
Introduction Secondary victimisation is where the victims of crime are treated with disrespect and have had their basic human rights ignored. In certain instances, this secondary victimisation can be far more traumatic to the victim than the initial crime. Not only can the secondary victimisation be due to the treatment by criminal justice officials, but also by the victim’s family, friends or community. Secondary victimisation in the court process Secondary victimisation refers to behaviours and attitudes of social service providers that are "victim-blaming" and insensitive, and which traumatise victims of violence who are being served by these agencies. A victim of rape (primary victimisation), for example, may be subjected to victim blaming and ostracism as the result of the attack; those who become disabled (primary victimisation) may be subjected to non-accommodation, medicalization, and segregation; and those who develop mental disorder (primary victimisation) may be subject to institutionalisation, that in each case may be far more victimising to these individuals and limiting of their life opportunity than the primary victimising stigmatic condition itself, and are thus called secondary victimisation.
Describing crime and deviance is varied across different cultures; history; social situations and place. It will look at the bodies that measure crime and look at the reasons why they are not accurate. There are several differences between crime and deviance, deviance is a violation of the social norms whereas crime is a violation of the laws of the land. Society has no power for deviance but the government can punish with crime. Much behaviour that was seen as deviant in the past has today become a criminal offence, as with crime behaviour seen as criminal is now seen as deviant.