Question 1
On the 22nd of August I attended the Gympie Magistrates Court from 9am to 12pm. At first glance, the courtroom gave off a welcoming feel with its bright and spacious atmosphere. The prosecution was represented by a police officer as do most lower court cases and the defence was represented by a variety of different representatives, including paid attorneys, legal aid workers and self-representation (Auburn, Hay and Wilkinson 2011; Sarre 2012, 441). A correctional parole officer was also present who assisted with providing additional information to defendants sentenced to probation or parole. There was no jury in the courtroom as it was the Magistrates’ court (Sarre 2012, 441-444). Ahead of the prosecution and defence sat the deposition …show more content…
These two models of operating in our criminal justice system (CJS) were first acknowledged in the 1970s by Packer with his contemplation of what is happening in the CJS versus what ought to happen (Daly 2012, 396; Sung 2006, 313). He established that the crime control model was primarily concerned with efficiency within the CJS by separating the factually guilty from the non-guilty in the early stages using police and prosecution, resulting in weeding out those assumed not guilty and progressing those factually guilty onto the next stages under a presumption of guilt (Daly 2012, 397). This model’s primary aim is to protect society and maintain public order through an efficient criminal process with swift punishment. Whereas the due process model is primarily aimed at ensuring individuals are protected from unfair treatment by the state, their rights are upheld and they are given a fair process (Daly 2012, 397). The model is concerned with the accuracy and reliability of criminal processes and holds little faith in the accuracy of police and prosecution in the early stages of the CJS. The model runs on the presumption of innocence, aiming to ignore presuming accused people are guilty and distinguished factual guilt from legal, which is based on legally obtained evidence (Sung 2006, …show more content…
Therapeutic jurisprudence is a philosophy of law that pushes for law and its agents to work in a way that does no harm when seeking justice (Daly and Marchetti 2012, 469-470). It aims to improve the emotional, behavioural and mental wellbeing of people who come into contact with the CJS in the hopes it will lead individuals away from the CJS (Bartels and Richards 2013, 31). Sentencing governed under therapeutic jurisprudence are not aimed at punishing offenders, but at doing what is best for the offender in a rehabilitating fashion. Therapeutic jurisprudence courtrooms are very much informal in their operation with judges playing active roles and speaking directly with offenders, being offender based in considering the individuals’ circumstances when making decisions and aimed towards rehabilitating the offender, that be through educational and/or therapeutic support (Fay-Ramirez 2015, 205; Daly and Marchetti 2012,
On the 22nd of August I attended the Gympie Magistrates Court from 9am to 12pm. At first glance, the courtroom gave off a welcoming feel with its bright and spacious atmosphere. The prosecution was represented by a police officer as do most lower court cases and the defence was represented by a variety of different representatives, including paid attorneys, legal aid workers and self-representation (Auburn, Hay and Wilkinson 2011; Sarre 2012, 441). A correctional parole officer was also present who assisted with providing additional information to defendants sentenced to probation or parole. There was no jury in the courtroom as it was the Magistrates’ court (Sarre 2012, 441-444). Ahead of the prosecution and defence sat the deposition …show more content…
These two models of operating in our criminal justice system (CJS) were first acknowledged in the 1970s by Packer with his contemplation of what is happening in the CJS versus what ought to happen (Daly 2012, 396; Sung 2006, 313). He established that the crime control model was primarily concerned with efficiency within the CJS by separating the factually guilty from the non-guilty in the early stages using police and prosecution, resulting in weeding out those assumed not guilty and progressing those factually guilty onto the next stages under a presumption of guilt (Daly 2012, 397). This model’s primary aim is to protect society and maintain public order through an efficient criminal process with swift punishment. Whereas the due process model is primarily aimed at ensuring individuals are protected from unfair treatment by the state, their rights are upheld and they are given a fair process (Daly 2012, 397). The model is concerned with the accuracy and reliability of criminal processes and holds little faith in the accuracy of police and prosecution in the early stages of the CJS. The model runs on the presumption of innocence, aiming to ignore presuming accused people are guilty and distinguished factual guilt from legal, which is based on legally obtained evidence (Sung 2006, …show more content…
Therapeutic jurisprudence is a philosophy of law that pushes for law and its agents to work in a way that does no harm when seeking justice (Daly and Marchetti 2012, 469-470). It aims to improve the emotional, behavioural and mental wellbeing of people who come into contact with the CJS in the hopes it will lead individuals away from the CJS (Bartels and Richards 2013, 31). Sentencing governed under therapeutic jurisprudence are not aimed at punishing offenders, but at doing what is best for the offender in a rehabilitating fashion. Therapeutic jurisprudence courtrooms are very much informal in their operation with judges playing active roles and speaking directly with offenders, being offender based in considering the individuals’ circumstances when making decisions and aimed towards rehabilitating the offender, that be through educational and/or therapeutic support (Fay-Ramirez 2015, 205; Daly and Marchetti 2012,