In the Australian criminal justice system (CJS) an extensive array of pathways to sentencing and punishment exist in conjunction with traditional court processes (Bartles, Richards, 2016, 1). On Monday the 5th and Wednesday the 7th of September these pathways were observed in Queensland’s district and supreme court through the criminal trials of Faithful and Riscuta, as well as the criminal sentencings of Large, Mitchell and Parsons. Through the conspicuous structure and layout, the courtrooms, without difficulty, are able to distinguish various key roles in the room. The trial of Faithful and Riscuta saw the prosecution and defence give introductory statements to the jury to explicate the case. This accentuated that it was the responsibility
…show more content…
Packer’s binary models can be captured by redolent metaphors with the crime control method resembling a high-speed assembly line conveyer belt, contrasting against the due process model which is metaphorically represented as an obstacle course (Roach, 1999, 676). His crime control model looks to the legislature emphasising the necessity of punishment through screening out the innocent and convicting the rest by a process that drops weak cases, placing a premium speed on definiteness (Roach, 1999, 678; Smith, 1997). This further requires that suspects are presumed factually guilty and thus convicted highlighting that this model is not excessively concerned with legal guilt that could be found beyond a reasonable doubt. With minorities known to take the burden of police prosecutions Packer’s due process model is concerned with rights, equality, protection and a fair trial, allowing all defendants the right to a lawyer, further emphasising the aim of protecting the factually innocent (Roach, 1999, 680; Smith, …show more content…
Its essential principle observes therapeutic and anti-therapeutic penalties that stream from legal rules and actors further highlighting the reality that legal rules, practices and actors have consequences on the mental health, emotional health and the physical well-being of individuals involved in a case (Freckleton, 2008, 576; Madden, Wayne, 2003, 339). Branching from this Winick and Wexler conclude that the usage of behavioural science tools to examine the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic influences of the law permits those to improve the therapeutic functioning of the law without violating significant criminal justice values including due process concerns (Scott, 2004). Furthermore, therapeutic jurisprudence is closely aligned with procedural justice and consists of various key elements which entail that this model is non-adversarial, emotionally intelligent and psychologically attuned, not coercive or paternalistic, offender orientated and allows for self- determination and
Packer’s binary models can be captured by redolent metaphors with the crime control method resembling a high-speed assembly line conveyer belt, contrasting against the due process model which is metaphorically represented as an obstacle course (Roach, 1999, 676). His crime control model looks to the legislature emphasising the necessity of punishment through screening out the innocent and convicting the rest by a process that drops weak cases, placing a premium speed on definiteness (Roach, 1999, 678; Smith, 1997). This further requires that suspects are presumed factually guilty and thus convicted highlighting that this model is not excessively concerned with legal guilt that could be found beyond a reasonable doubt. With minorities known to take the burden of police prosecutions Packer’s due process model is concerned with rights, equality, protection and a fair trial, allowing all defendants the right to a lawyer, further emphasising the aim of protecting the factually innocent (Roach, 1999, 680; Smith, …show more content…
Its essential principle observes therapeutic and anti-therapeutic penalties that stream from legal rules and actors further highlighting the reality that legal rules, practices and actors have consequences on the mental health, emotional health and the physical well-being of individuals involved in a case (Freckleton, 2008, 576; Madden, Wayne, 2003, 339). Branching from this Winick and Wexler conclude that the usage of behavioural science tools to examine the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic influences of the law permits those to improve the therapeutic functioning of the law without violating significant criminal justice values including due process concerns (Scott, 2004). Furthermore, therapeutic jurisprudence is closely aligned with procedural justice and consists of various key elements which entail that this model is non-adversarial, emotionally intelligent and psychologically attuned, not coercive or paternalistic, offender orientated and allows for self- determination and