The discretion in the criminal justice system is placed to protect society from injustice in the abuse of power. Discretion is a judgment that is exercised by applying principles and values and facts, which can be explored through the police discretionary role, judicial discretion in punishment and sentencing and the effectiveness of the diversionary schemes applicable to the young offenders. Although the role of discretion within the criminal justice system has many advantages, it can lead to many conflicts in the process of conviction. Primarily, this is due to the misuse of powers the police and judge have been given in order to carry out their discretionary role to protect society.
The use of police discretion has been effective in achieving …show more content…
In the provision of fair punishments, judges must use their own discretion during sentencing to take all aspects of the case into account. However, judicial discretion became restricted after community outrage pertaining to inconsistent sentences. R v Jurisic established the basis of sentencing guidelines due to the leniency of his sentence by the court. In particular, three charges of dangerous driving under the influence of cocaine that led to grievous body harm resulted in an 18 months home detention, a 2 year good behaviour bond and a 1 year suspension of his license. Therefore, under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), this established mandatory maximum sentences for serious crimes. Subsequently, sentencing guidelines limit judicial discretion, but satisfy the community as it achieves justice. Vision impact statements has proven to be an effective method of resorting justice to the victim and the community, by taking into account the impact the crime has on the victim. Discretion in relation to vision impact statements has ultimately had the role of considering the victim in the case and how it has impacted upon their lives, in turn affecting the sentencing and punishment given to offenders. Thus, discretion can be seen to be relatively effective in the role it plays in the sentencing and punishment of
The use of police discretion has been effective in achieving …show more content…
In the provision of fair punishments, judges must use their own discretion during sentencing to take all aspects of the case into account. However, judicial discretion became restricted after community outrage pertaining to inconsistent sentences. R v Jurisic established the basis of sentencing guidelines due to the leniency of his sentence by the court. In particular, three charges of dangerous driving under the influence of cocaine that led to grievous body harm resulted in an 18 months home detention, a 2 year good behaviour bond and a 1 year suspension of his license. Therefore, under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), this established mandatory maximum sentences for serious crimes. Subsequently, sentencing guidelines limit judicial discretion, but satisfy the community as it achieves justice. Vision impact statements has proven to be an effective method of resorting justice to the victim and the community, by taking into account the impact the crime has on the victim. Discretion in relation to vision impact statements has ultimately had the role of considering the victim in the case and how it has impacted upon their lives, in turn affecting the sentencing and punishment given to offenders. Thus, discretion can be seen to be relatively effective in the role it plays in the sentencing and punishment of