Though only 14.6 per cent of the New Zealand population is Maori, Maori constitute 50 per cent of all persons imprisoned (Department of Corrections, 2007). Thus, it is apparent that New Zealand’s Indigenous population is overrepresented in its criminal justice system. The causes of this disproportionately high rate of Maori incarceration stem from colonialism. To address this social injustice, New Zealand courts have attempted to recognise indigeneity in the sentencing of Maori offenders. However, the acceptance of indigeneity by courts has been superficial by incorporating elements of tikanga Maori into the Western legal system, rather than creating an autonomous system of justice for Maori. In this regard, while current sentencing practices …show more content…
Though a general provision, the Minister of Justice noted it was to reduce the overrepresentation of Maori within the system (Jeffries & Stenning, 2014). However, there is no evidence that this section was used by courts to mitigate indigenous offending (Jackson, 1988). On review, it was found that there was little public awareness of the provision, with only 14 per cent of ethnic offenders using it (Chetwin, Waldegrave & Simonsen, 2000). Even still, the provision was hardly used to ameliorate the sentence, as the majority of Maori offenders still received a custodial sentence (Chetwin et al., …show more content…
The difference is that this practice is specific to the Aboriginal community, whereas in New Zealand section 27 applies as a general provision. However, the reality is that New Zealand has more than one disadvantaged group, and perhaps it is beneficial that section 27 also applies to other ethnicities, as Chetwin et al (2000) noted that the earlier equivalent provision was also used by Pacific people. Hence, it is clear that something more is required to account for indigeneity at
From the aforementioned cases, it is evident to see that the Australian legal system has not always been fair and just, however, over time it has been shaped and moulded to clearly represent what is now considered to be fair and just in our society. From the procedures and presumptions of how the legal system is administered to the law and regulations which determine what is the crime and punishment – these are based on the transparency, equality, freedom from bias, human rights, and established set of rules adhere to the justice and fairness of the legal system.
PRATT, J. & CLARK, M. 2005. Penal populism in New Zealand. Punishment & Society, 7, 303-317.
On the other hand, a number of parities also support mandatory sentencing terms of imprisonment. These parties believe that mandatory minimum sentencing will eliminate dishonesty that characterized sentencing in the 20th century. The whole process demonstrated dishonesty and sarcasm, which crumbles the professional and public respect necessary for the criminal Justice system to be deemed a morally defensive exercise of governmental
The purpose of this paper is to examine why the justice system fails for First Nations persons and alternative rehabilitation methods used by Aboriginal people, comprised of Aboriginal people, for Aboriginal people, in hopes to rehabilitate offenders and prevent criminal behavior in the Aboriginal community from precontact to today. Through the attempts of Aboriginal people to take control of their own destiny’s in the ever going struggle to attain self-government I will examine the aims and structure of one of these alternative rehabilitation methods, the Sentencing Circle used today to address the need to return to community based “Restorative Justice Programs” in the Aboriginal community
New Zealand’s punitiveness index shows that the incarceration rate peaked at the year of neo-liberal reform, however, the rate really escalated in 2002 after punitive legalisations had passed following the introduction of penal populism (Cavadino & Dignan, 2006). This is a crucial period to explore the responses to crime after the introduction of penal populism, simultaneously the inequality that was happening as well. By 2002, New Zealand had become a neo-liberal country for over 15 years, and this shaped the different responses of penal populism with the rise of new inequalities (Cavadino & Dignan, 2006). Neo-liberal economic reforms dramatically escalated inequality in New Zealand, social conditions were declining and sections of the population became excluded from work (Cavadino & Dignan, 2006). Those most targeted by New Zealand’s prison growth are predominantly young Maori men, who are excluded from employment and education, and suffered terribly under the neo-liberal reform (Pratt,
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.
The criminal justice system is full of inequality and disparities among race, gender, and class. From policing neighborhoods, and the ongoing war on drugs, to sentencing, there are underlying biases and discriminatory practices in the criminal justice system that impacts minority communities and groups. Fueled by stereotypes and generalizations, it is important to identify and discuss what crimes take place and who actually makes it up.
Restorative justice can be defined as a theory related to justice that is concerned on repairing the harm that is caused or revealed by a criminal behavior (Barsh 2005: 359). Over the years, restorative justice has been seen as an effective way of dealing with both social as well as cultural issues of the aboriginal people. Because of these, restorative justice is used in many of the local communities in an effort to correct criminal behavior. This concept is seen as a conceptualization of justice which is in most cases congruent with the cultural and the community values of the aboriginal people. There is growing body of evidence which suggests that there are a number of challenges which accrue the effective implementation of restorative justice amongst the aboriginal people.
The gross over representation of indigenous people in the Australian criminal justice system (CJS) is so disturbingly evident that it is never the source of debate. Rather it is the starting point of discussions centring on the source and solutions to this prominent social, cultural and political issue. Discourse surrounds not only the economic and social disadvantage of indigenous communities, but also the systemic racism and continuing intergenerational trauma resulting for the unjust colonisation of a nation which has profited whites at the detriment to indigenous people throughout history. In respect to the currently CJS, trepidations are raised by indigenous communities around the lack of culturally diverse laws and punishments within the system. The overtly western system does not provide a viable space for indigenous
are often sentencing them to incarceration in a rehabilitation and treatment facility, instead of prison.
This essay intends to address the role that state agencies, both within the Criminal Justice System (CJS) and more broadly the institutions of education, employment and health, play in supporting and implementing diversionary programs for offenders with mental health problems. Mental health is clearly one of the most critical issues facing the Australian and New South Wales (NSW) CJS with research indicating that offenders with mental health problems constitute the majority of those within the prison system. The current strategies for diversion will be critically evaluated in order to determine their effectiveness with regard to the delivery and production of justice, cultural sensitivity for Indigenous Australians will also be considered. The social construction of mental illness and the associated process of stigmatisation of this particular group will be explored in conjunction to explain why society still fails to prevent the mass entry of people with mental health issues into the traditional CJS.
The sentencing process is created by some of the legislative parties, who use their control to decide on the type of criminal punishment. The sentencing guidelines for the judges to go by can be different depending on the jurisdiction and can include different sentencing requirements such as “diversionary programs, fines, probation, intermediate sanctions, confinement in jail, incarceration in a state or federal prison, and the death penalty” (Siegel & Bartollas, 2011, p. 40). In some jurisdictions, the death penalty is not included as one of the punishments. Being sentenced is step one of the correction process and is in place to discourage repeat offenders (Siegel & Bartollas, 2011, p. 40). Depending on the crime committed, the offender can be sentenced to a consecutive sentence or a concurrent sentence.
Institutional racism is when social institutions give negative treatment to people of a certain ethnicity, which in effect leads to inequalities. The UN (2015) states that only 15% of New Zealand’s population are Māori, and yet Māori make up over 50% of the prison population. The racism in the justice system means that people are being prosecuted based on the colour of their skin. With criminal behaviour connected with Māori, this leads to marginalisation, alienation and racism in other forms of society. I will discuss the state of Māori in New Zealand prisons, followed by what effect this has on the Māori community and also the implications this has on wider society.
It is also a way to empower the community and to establish their capacity and reliance on informal methods of social control. Alternatively though, McLaughlin and Muncie (2001) raise the point that community-based justice systems that may be effective in New Zealand cannot be expected to be as effective in a different culture, whereby social norms and control methods are very different as well as expectations of conformity. Restorative justice is largely volunteer based and relies on communities being unified as well as having the skills and capabilities 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).
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,