Does the Australian Criminal Justice System always successfully balance the rights of individuals with the needs of the community?
While the Australian Criminal Justice system is usually sufficient in balancing the rights of individuals with society’s need for order, it does not always succeed in doing this. Often, there are times in which one side or the other feels justice has not been served. It is usually the most severe cases in which the law does not effectively balance the rights of the individual with society’s need for order and safety. In these cases, mandatory minimum sentences should be imposed on people who fit certain criteria and who are charged with indictable offences.
Recently, the author experienced (is there a better way …show more content…
As demonstrated in both the R v Perry case and the R v Reynolds case, despite having committed several serious offences each, the defendants only received relatively small sentences. A more suitable punishment would be for each defendant to serve a mandatory period of a number of years without parole (this period would of course depend on the crimes committed). To ensure that such a punishment remains fair to both the individual and the community, there would need to be a list of criteria that the defendant should meet in order to receive a mandatory sentence. Therefore, this also gives some of the authority back to the judge, as they must decide whether the perpetrator fits the criteria required by the …show more content…
By doing this, society’s need for safety and order is balanced against the severity of the crimes committed. The rehabilitation of the offenders may only go so far in protecting the victims, and society, and by imposing mandatory sentences the victims receive justice for the crimes committed against them. Even though mandatory sentencing may take away some degree of the judge’s authority, it is still their duty to determine whether or not the defendant is able to receive a mandatory sentence. By bringing in legislation for mandatory minimum sentences, society’s needs for order and safety are met, and the rights of the individual are
While the Australian Criminal Justice system is usually sufficient in balancing the rights of individuals with society’s need for order, it does not always succeed in doing this. Often, there are times in which one side or the other feels justice has not been served. It is usually the most severe cases in which the law does not effectively balance the rights of the individual with society’s need for order and safety. In these cases, mandatory minimum sentences should be imposed on people who fit certain criteria and who are charged with indictable offences.
Recently, the author experienced (is there a better way …show more content…
As demonstrated in both the R v Perry case and the R v Reynolds case, despite having committed several serious offences each, the defendants only received relatively small sentences. A more suitable punishment would be for each defendant to serve a mandatory period of a number of years without parole (this period would of course depend on the crimes committed). To ensure that such a punishment remains fair to both the individual and the community, there would need to be a list of criteria that the defendant should meet in order to receive a mandatory sentence. Therefore, this also gives some of the authority back to the judge, as they must decide whether the perpetrator fits the criteria required by the …show more content…
By doing this, society’s need for safety and order is balanced against the severity of the crimes committed. The rehabilitation of the offenders may only go so far in protecting the victims, and society, and by imposing mandatory sentences the victims receive justice for the crimes committed against them. Even though mandatory sentencing may take away some degree of the judge’s authority, it is still their duty to determine whether or not the defendant is able to receive a mandatory sentence. By bringing in legislation for mandatory minimum sentences, society’s needs for order and safety are met, and the rights of the individual are