The number of people that are detained within immigration detention in Australia changes constantly. As of 30th of November 2015, there were 1,852 people held in immigration detention facilities and 585 in community detention. 174 children were being detained in closed immigration detention facilities: 104 were being held in closed immigration detention facilities within Australia and 70 children were detained in the Regional Centre in Nauru. However, there was also 331 children in community detention in Australia. That’s over 400 children being held in detention centres. Australia’s refugee policy has no set time limit to how long a person may be held in immigration detention. The period of time in which an individual spends in detention may vary from a few …show more content…
In doing so, we are also blocking out people who have the potential to bring even more cultural diversity into the community. If we honestly believe that we are a generous and multicultural nation, it’s time we show it by empathising with our fellow human beings. In order to improve the conditions in detention centres there must be a change to our unnecessarily harsh system. We need rules to be enforced, such as; a maximum 30 day time limit, and the people that are detained must be let out within this time frame. Within this time, health, character and identity checks must be completed. Shutting down isolating and remote detention centres. Speeding up the processing system. Asylum seekers must be given the opportunity to communicate with the outside world and have full access to legal advice and counselling. This means that telephones, internet and external activities need to be an option. Unaccompanied minors also need to be a priority. It is time that Australia treats our neighbours with all the dignity and respect that they finally
Watching the documentary “Go Back To Where You Came From” regarding the issues of Asylum Seekers and Refugees, I am disgusted about the way that Australia has been treating Asylum Seekers and Refugees. That is why I am writing you this letter to promote and voice my view on the treatment to refugees, the Stop the Boats Policy and ways to minimise this Issue.
An extraordinary 65.3 million Refugees have been displaced around the world. In 2015 Australia took 12,000 of them. But where are Australians placing these Refugees? Australia is deporting these Refugees to a third country, either on Manus or Nauru Island. These Islands have reports of inhumane and cruel treatment towards Refugees For those who aren’t fully aware of what Refugees are; they are people whom come to Australia illegally without the appropriate visas. They cannot obtain these visas because of the reasons they are fleeing their country … their Government. None the less it should be the Australian Government they fear. The concepts of refugees are kept hidden away from us by our own Government in reflection of their Governments own self-interest. This tragedy is classified as a modern day witch hunt.
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
Controversy has surrounded Australia’s boat arrivals since 2001, when the Howard government took office. Howard instituted Operation Relex, a policy directing the Royal Australian Navy to intercept and board suspected illegal entry vessels, or SIEV’s (Turning Back Boats). Initially widely accepted, this policy was designed to discourage people from arriving illegally by boat. However, turning back small, overcrowded boats, and returning them just inside Indonesian waters, quickly became a safety issue (Turning Back Boats). According to the “Senate Select Committee’s Inquiry into a Certain Maritime Incident,” of the 12 boats intercepted from September 2002 to March 2003, four were turned back and three sank, killing two people (Turning Back Boats). Although Australia has a right to protect its borders from illegal aliens, over 90% of these asylum-seekers qualify as refugees (Turning Back Boats). Such a low success rate is reason enough to end the hazardous practice, but even more concerning are the detention centers where the remaining 10% are held. In 2001, the Howard government passed the Pacific Solution, authorizing the transport of asylum-seekers to island nations and offshore detention centers (Turning Back Boats). Since then, countless human rights violations have occurred at the Christmas Island, Manus Island, and Nauru detention centers (Murray). The asylum-seekers, some children, are often detained in poor conditions for indefinite periods of time, subjected to enhanced screenings, and refused legal representation or the right to appeal (Australia). After Howard left office in 2006 the refugee policies stopped, and the Australian government worked to heal the damage done to the islanders and its international reputation (Turning Back Boats). However, under PM Tony Abbott, the asylum seeker policies returned in 2014 through Operation Sovereign
The United States of America has the world’s highest incarceration rates, for several reasons. The United States of America doesn’t necessarily possess any unique strict laws in comparison to other countries of the world, yet we still have the highest incarceration rate in the world. More federal level and state level prisons are built in order to control and hold more prisoners because most are reaching its full capacity. The United States of America’s “crime rates” increased about 40 years ago when there became a new focus in the areas of crime. The President of the United States of America at the time Richard Nixon used the term “a war on drugs” in order to shed light on public health due to substance abuse. Initially, these policies created
The 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act abandoned the dispersal policy and voucher scheme and introduced warehousing accommodation in the form of a camp that’s like a prison to house asylum seekers with a separate education and healthcare provision, these finally excludes them from normal community life (Bochel et al, 2009:388). This was highly criticized by NGOs, refugee council, refugee organization and several charitable organizations for refugee and this sometimes led to riots in the detention centre. The 2004-2006 Act further tightens the asylum system and speeded detention and removal by the withdrawal of legal rights (Bochel et al, 2009:388). The home office insist the dispersal policy is going on well whereas on the ground opinion is mixed (Guardian, 27 June 2001) this came up due to the case of some 14 asylum seekers on hunger strike in protest against the poor living condition in the privately run Liverpool tower block. The refugee council has serious concern over the dispersal policy especially as unaccompanied minors are being dispersed alongside adults with no proper resources and support service put in place. Chief executive Nick Hardwick mentioned that for dispersal policy to work government department need to develop proper support services for asylum seekers in dispersing areas and that dumping asylum seekers on poor estate blocks where they cannot access basic services like healthcare and education is leaving them abandoned and vulnerable (Guardian, 27 June 2001). In some situation asylum seekers refused to be dispersed and decide to
The conditions of Australia’s immigration detention policies have also been cause for concern for probable contraventions of Articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR. Whilst in Sweden, asylum seekers are afforded free housing whilst their applications are being processed, Australia’s methods are much more callous. Under the Pacific Solution, maritime asylum seekers are sent to impoverished tropical islands with no monitoring by human rights organisations allowed (Hyndman and Mountz, 2008). The UNHCR criticised Australia’s offshore processing centres stating that “significant overcrowding, cramped living quarters, unhygienic conditions, little privacy and harsh tropical climate contribute to the poor conditions of… Nauru and Papua New Guinea” (Morales
Bhabha, J., & Young, W. (1998) Through A Child's Eyes: Protecting the Most Vulnerable Asylum Seekers. Interpreter Releases 75 (21), pp. 757-791.
Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.
The Stolen Generation has left devastating impacts upon the Aboriginal culture and heritage, Australian history and the presence of equality experienced today. The ‘Stolen Generation’ refers to the children of Aboriginal descent being forcefully abducted by government officials of Australia and placed within institutions and catholic orphanages, being forced to assimilate into ‘white society’. These dehumanising acts placed these stolen children to experience desecration of culture, loss of identity and the extinction of their race. The destructive consequences that followed were effects of corruption including attempted suicide, depression and drug and alcohol abuse. The indigenous peoples affected by this have endured solitude for many years, this has only been expressed to the public recently and a proper apology has been issued, for the years of ignorance to the implementation of destruction of culture. The Stolen Generation has dramatically shaped Australian history and culture.
According to the Oxford Index, “whether called mass incarceration, mass imprisonment, the prison boom, or hyper incarceration, this phenomenon refers to the current American experiment in incarceration, which is defined by comparatively and historically extreme rates of imprisonment and by the concentration of imprisonment among young, African American men living in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage.” It should be noted that there is much ambiguity in the scholarly definition of the newly controversial social welfare issue as well as a specific determination in regards to the causes and consequences to American society. While some pro arguments cry act as a crime prevention technique, especially in the scope of the “war on drugs’.
The two main types of incarceration include short-term, which is used for minor crimes and offenses, and long-term incarceration which are major crimes that involve major rehabilitation. Short-term incarceration is exactly how it sounds, it is a form of confinement that lasts for only a short period of time. It is reserved for the minor crimes that are committed in order to give the correct punishment to the guilty offender. These short-term incarceration places house current and future inmates. The short-term punishments include the obvious such as more jail time, but it could also mean other forms of punishment such as house arrest, parole, work release programs, rehab, and also probation. These punishments are meant to confine the offender
The prison system in the United States was not always like it is today. It took mistakes and changes in order to get it to the point it is at. Some people think that prisons should still be being changed while others feel that they are fine the way they are. It is hard to make an argument for one side or the other if one does not know about the history of prisons as well as the differences between prisons structures and differences in prison management. Knowledge of private prisons is also needed to make this difficult decision.
Between 1990 and 2007, the number of children under 18 years old with an incarcerated parent in the United States increased from 945,600 to 1,706,600, reaching 2.3% of the nation’s children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). These children can suffer from traumatic separation, loneliness, stigma, confused explanations to children, unstable childcare arrangements, strained parenting, reduced income, and home, school, and neighborhood moves. (Murray, Farrington, and Sekol 2012). Additionally, these children are put into high stress life events while their parents go through the process of being incarcerated and likely had other stressors before their incarceration. The behavioral effects of these children and their families have urgent social concerns, as incarceration effects go far outside of prison walls.
Globalisation has increased modern technology all over the world enabling more people, such as globally separated families, to maintain contact. Increased media coverage also draws the attention of the world to human rights violation which can lead to an improvement in human rights. This is not a reflection of all marginalised groups. In Australia, the detention of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC) contravenes the United Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), however the media are prohibited to enter detention centres and report on this issue (Cemlyn and Briskman, 2003).