The use of mandatory sentencing practices in the Northern Territory from 1997 to 2001, and the application of similar laws in Western Australia, led to considerable public controversy and outcry. These laws, known colloquially as ‘three strikes laws’, may have hindered the effectiveness of discretionary sentencing, the application of mitigating circumstances, and the prison system in achieving justice, through the application of inappropriate penalties which have led to effects more adverse than would exist in a just situation. In a legal sense, mandatory sentencing is the procedure whereby judicial discretion regarding certain crimes and in certain cases is restricted by law. In an Australian context, it has been taken to refer to the procedures applied in the Northern Territory, under the governments of Shane Stone and Denis Burke, whereby mandatory sentences from one month to one year for the third offence relating to property and theft were introduced. These matters gained national attention after the death in custody of Johnno [sic] Warramarrba in February 2001, who committed
Specific recommendations for recognition of aspects of customary law were made in respect of: • Marriage and family matters, child custody, fostering and adoption. • The criminal law (including policing, interrogation, evidence and sentencing). • Hunting, fishing and gathering rights. • Local justice mechanisms for Aboriginal communities. The ALRC noted many arguments in favour for recognition of Aboriginal customary law: • Recognition would advance the process of reconciliation between Aboriginal and non—Aboriginal people.
Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, in his essay, “Bring Back Flogging,” (Feb 20, 1997) argues that flogging should be brought back to replace the conventional method of the imprisonment of non-violent offenders since it is cheaper. Jacoby supports his argument by describing how prisoners only treat prison like a graduate school of criminal studies and they become even more ruthless, at the same time he also mentioned that flogging will be a better choice money wise. His purpose is to persuade the readers that flogging is a better capital punishment compared to imprisoning convicts. David Cole establishes an ironic and knowledgeable tone with his audience of people in superior position and the civilians. Even though I think flogging is humiliating and painful, it is clearly a much easier and cheaper way of locking up a criminal rather than putting them in prison, and that we should consider bringing it back for non-violent crimes.
‘Sneaky path to justice’, further more challenging Australian laws and showing the gravity of the problem the word ‘sneaky’ petitions some sort of double dealing is being done.’ Dangerous driving justices seems to be a myth’ justice seems to be the key word which the writer seems to be employing indicating tot the reader the righteousness and equity is not relevant when hooning is involved. The word ‘myth’ suggests some sort of mistaken belief, which down plays the severity of the issue just as our court system seems to down play, the consequences. With many of the reader having a vivid picture of the harsh reality with what is happening, the writer proceeds to illustrate how easily hoons get away with their offences. ‘Janes walked away’ this demonstrates how the lack of authoritarian involvement lets these people just merely walk away. There’s a strong sense of unimportance of the issue, it advocates to the readers that these people will continue to have a spot on our roads.
As it is felt that expanding and clarifying the Three Strikes Law is the best option within one debate is the three strikes law “destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge. Each criminal offender is different. Each set of crimes is different. The specific reason we have judges, juries, and lawyers is that each situation deserves a fair analysis and punishment. A one-size-fits-all system of judgment destroys the flexibility.” (Messerli, 2012) But it is felt within establishing the clarification and limitations of these laws being applied that of only serious, and for violent crimes limits the possible miss application of these guidelines into crimes that would be seen as unjust for the crime
The right realist views closely match with those of the neo-conservative views in the 70s and 80s. They both argue that ‘nothing works’. Right realists are more concerned with solving crime rather than understanding the causes. Right realism favours increasing the cost paid by those who commit crimes by for example giving harsher sentencing. Right realists such as James Wilson and Richard Herrnstien put forward a biosocial theory of crime.
But should this be the way? In my personal opinion, capital punishment is cruel and unusual, it is legalised murder, which is ethically and morally wrong. Introduction Since the last official execution in Australia in 1967, the issue of capital punishment has been raised in many aspects of our lives, through the media, general discussions, parliament, etc. My argument in this essay, is that Capital Punishment should not be reintroduced into any society, and should be taken out of the one‘s that have decided to keep it. (www.spinneypress.com.au/capital punishment) There will be four main points to my essay argument.
The advantages of probation are that it is a more serious order than a good behavior bond, but still suitable for less serious offences, easier to supervise conditions imposed on the offender, inexpensive and can rehabilitate the offender. The disadvantages of probation are that the offender has the opportunity to re-offend, may not deter and takes up police time that could be better spent. The key to making probation orders effective is the quality of the supervision provided by the probation officers. A suspended sentence is where an offender is sentenced to full-time imprisonment for 2 years or less, the Judge may order that the sentence be ‘suspended’; in other words, that the offender be released from custody and enter a good behavior bond for the term of the
Approximate estimate of the revenue makes up from ten to twenty billion dollars per year. Advocates of both sides put convincing arguments behind their point of view and argue the opponents no less convincingly. If price on drugs decreases in the case of legalization drug business would lose its economical base. Then legalization, according to the assumptions of its supports, would lower crime rate because drug addicts would be law-abiding. Alcohol and nicotine are narcotics as well and they are legitimated.
It is a common assumption that for every crime there should be a suitable penalty. Legal systems differ in determining their forms and duration and prison is the most popular way worldwide to punish those who violate law. An ideal form of punishment should not only punish, but also help to socialize the criminal into society and prevent him from further crimes. Unfortunately, jails in many countries are overcrowded and expensive for taxpayers; they do not work as a threat that scares potential offenders and most importantly, they fail to reclaim and reeducate convicted of a crime. According to journalist, Tom Whitehead, longer prison sentences prevent criminals from committing further crimes.