The new Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act (2003) In Queensland permits prisoners to be kept in prison beyond their release date where a court finds that there is a ‘high degree of probability’ that they represent a ‘serious danger to the community’. Other jurisdictions have enacted similar legislation to restrict the release of prisoners assessed to be dangerous. Do you think that dangerousness legislation of this sort is justified or unjustified? Several states across the Country have enacted or attempted to enact legislation which can enable detention of a prisoner past his/her release date. This type of legislation’s general purpose is to provide a mechanism whereby prisoners who, if released pose an unacceptable risk of committing further serious offences, may be detained where it is deemed appropriate to do so for the protection of the community (Field, 2003). The most recent of these being the Queensland Government’s passing of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. Similar laws were introduced in New South Wales in 1994, however they were ultimately ruled invalid by the High Court. Prior to this in 1991 Victoria enacted legislation known as the Community Protection Act 1990, which allowed for the continued detention of one prisoner known as Garry David. Whilst this Act applied to no one else the Victorian Government attempted to broaden the legislation with Draft Bill proposals which ultimately lapse in the face of wide ranging criticism from lawyer, psychiatrists and academics. (Greig 1995) This type of legislation has been devised to allow for the detention of people based upon assessments of risk of re-offending, this essay will explore the concerns with these practices. This essay further aims to explore the moral and practical implications of such sentencing provisions and the impact it has on the whole Justice System. The writer will also address the conflicting goals of Corrections and the purpose and impact of indefinite sentencing while exploring the justifications against such legislation. This essay also aims to show that even though we may feel disgust for these types of offences we must remember the fundamentals of the Criminal Law system and understand that people are entitled to equality and fairness in the eyes of the law. It has been suggested that this type of legislation has largely been introduced to fi... ... middle of paper ... ...on. However the subjective nature of detaining someone after their release date is further complicated by the fact that there is no accurate basis for determining which offenders are likely to re-offend and which ones are not (Wortley and Smallbone, 2003). Is this type of legislation justified? In simple terms no. It removes basic human rights such as the Common Law belief of innocent until proven guilty, it also takes away the adversarial nature of our justice system and replaces it with the possibility of arbitrary imprisonment (NSW Law Commission, 2004). This type of legislation also fails to adequately balance the goals of Imprisonment instead focuses on the punitive goals and contradicts the goal of rehabilitation. People detained under this legislation can be forgiven for arguing that they are being punished over and over again for their crimes whilst some offenders get to serve their time and move on with their lives. Unfortunately the very principle of the legislation is to detain offenders until they are no longer a risk, when in reality the risk of re-offending could escalate because of the powerful feeling of injustice created by the legislation. WORD COUNT: 2367
People expect a penitentiary to hold inmates, especially dangerous ones, for as long as the court determines they should serve. Kingston Penitentiary has been doing that for many years. But it has also dedicated to the reform of inmates. What that means has changed dramatically over time. (Curtis et al, 1985)
Conclusion: Congress hoped to achieve a greater degree of accuracy in assessing flight and danger of arrestees through establishing the Bail Reform Act of 1984, which set objective guidelines for judicial officers in assessing release conditions including taking into account for the first time the probability an offender will re-offend while on pretrial release. It was also hoped that the Act would bring back the community's trust in bond setting practice. Overall, the benefits of the Bail Reform Act of 1984 do exceed any detriments, but some problems do exist. These problems include the uniformity in the application of the Bail Reform Act of 1984, as well as the interpretation of dangerousness to the community. Through future legislative and executive reform, this Act will go through multiple changes until these issues are addressed.
The collateral consequences of criminal convictions rather than the direct result are known as “invisible punishments”. In his article “Invisible Punishment”, Travis discusses the unintended consequences that punishes an individual beyond the formal sentence. Criminals are not only punished once for their crimes, they are punished twice, and these invisible punishments follow them throughout their lifetime. Travis explains that these punishments are a form of “Social exclusion”, not purposely designed but merely due to operation of law.
But as will be discussed, there are major flaws in the Australian criminal justice system with issues focussing on three main concerns: (i) lenient sentencing in the criminal justice system particularly with white-collar and blue-collar crimes (i) recidivism and lack of support for offenders (iii) public safety concerns. This essay will examine issues with the Australian prison system, and explore the punishment of shaming and if it is an effective method in preventing general and specific deterrence using sociological frameworks and theories.
In a modern Western society where there is significant amount of research done of rehabilitation and criminal justice reform, the practice of sentencing JLWOP (Juvenile Life Without Parole) seems outdated and primitive. There are a number of prominent human rights groups that advocate for the banning of the LWOP sentence for juvenile offenders. In his 2010 article for the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation titled ‘Extinguishing All Hope: Life-Without-Parole for Juveniles,’ Frank Butler breaks down the ethical arguments against the sentence from a social policy perspective. He uses a number of pertinent facts and dates to support and enhance his argument, but retains a clear and concise presentation style, making the document easy to read and comprehend on an analytical level. It is clear from his title that it is not an objective piece, but his opinion is supporte...
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
Punishment, when speaking on serious terms, is socially valuable because it deters criminals from repeating their crimes and may keep others from repeating the same acts. If in fact the deterring effect misses its point, it is the fault of the justice system the all the red tape found behind it. At its current standing, the system is viewed as a joke because no authority is taken, no one believes, let alone fears, the system. Both the lengthy time and the high expense result from innumerable appeals, including many technicalities which have little nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence. If these wasteless amount of appeals were eliminated or at least controlled, then the procedure would be much shorter, less expensive and more
When it comes to criminal justice there are several other options to punish someone rather than incarceration, any of these options can be used in place of incarcerating someone based on the individual needs. Does the person who drinks habitually need to go to jail for their fifth DUI, or do they need alcoholism classes? At the same time sometimes incarceration is the only option. Incarceration is a very costly process, and leaves the person who is incarcerated “institutionalized” where all they know is the system, and do not know how to survive outside of it. It is all a cost versus benefit battle.
Over the last few decades classification systems for offenders have been used for a variety of organizational purposes. Over time these classification systems have evolved, not only as a whole in the criminal justice system, but also varying between different organizations. Classification systems that create models based on the risks and needs of offenders are most popular. Throughout the years these models and the purposes for their use have been in a state of change, as well as the way their effectiveness is gaged.
Community-based corrections offer a viable alternative to imprisonment. As an alternative, a community-based correction save on cost, reduces prison populations, is an effective form of rehabilitation, is humane, and supported by public opinion. However, despite the potential for community-based correction for reducing prison population, this has not been the case. Judges are reluctant to hand community sanctions, and sentencing philosophy does not support it as an alternative mechanism for punishing offenders (Mackenzie, 2001).
This essay has identified sanctions imposed on offenders including imprisonment and community corrections. Described how punishment is justified with the just desert and deterrence theory. Discussing the rate of individuals being imprison comparted to community, provided rates for assault which shows crime being maintained and community member feel safe enough to allow for this to
...apabilities to deal with this which is not the case so much nowadays as Tony Marshall (1999) argues. There are criticisms over procedures, loss of rights such as an independent and impartial forum as well as the principle of proportionality in sentencing. There is also an unrealistic expectation that restorative justice can produce major changes in deviant behaviour, as there is not enough evidence to support this claim (Cunneen, 2007). Levrant et al (1999) on the other hand suggests that restorative justice still remains unproven in its’ effectiveness to stop reoffending and argues that its appeal lies in its apparent morality and humanistic sentiments rather than its empirical effectiveness. He continues to argue that it allows people to feel better within themselves through having the moral high ground rather than focusing on providing justice to the offender.
VonHofer, H. and R. Marvin. Imprisonment Today and Tomorrow: International perspectives. The Hague, The Neatherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2001. Print.
The American prison system has long touted the principal of deterrence – meaning that crime can be controlled by giving very harsh sentences to those who are caught, hoping that future crimes will be avoided because a would be perpetrator sees and fears what the potential punishment of following through with such an act might be. The idea that a single person’s punishment is going to keep others from committing a crime a key argument for our system of crime and punishment. This paper is going to focus on this currently failing policy of deterrence, examining its true nature, and then discuss its place, if any, that it has in our law enforcement system.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,