Post Sentencing Essay

Examine the impact of post sentencing considerations on the achievement of justice (600-800 words)

When an offender is sentenced to imprisonment, post sentencing considerations must be made based on an evaluation of the individual and this will determine the manner in which the prison sentence is served. Post sentencing considerations include security classifications, parole and continued detention orders. These offer different levels of incapacity, accessibility of rehabilitation programs and incentives for good behaviour, and are implicated in order to achieve justice through upholding the rights of the victim, the offender and the wider community.

Security classifications are considered by Corrective Services NSW in order to determine which

conditions a prisoner will be subject to and which rehabilitation programs are accessible. This is divided into three categories: low risk, medium risk and high risk, which varies in the level of incapacitation of the offender and the restriction of rehabilitation. High risk prisoners account for 37% of the prison population and the maximum security facilities that they are kept in are designed for serious offenders who commit severe crimes and provide a major threat to the victim and/or society. In order to uphold the rights of the victim and community, the social expectation of safety, prevent further crimes from being committed and deliver justice for the victim, it is necessary that high-risk category prisoners are significantly incapacitated. However, the limited access to rehabilitation programs is detrimental to the purpose of imprisonment and may contribute to the obstruction of justice. The release of a high risk offender into society who has not been rehabilitated is detrimental to society and poses a major threat. Therefore, maximum security facilities are beneficial in incapacitating serious offenders but may not provide rehabilitation. Alternatively, minimum security facilities for low risk offenders may provide opportunities for rehabilitation, but may not deliver justice for the victim. Generally, the community’s needs are upheld as the offender is typically rehabilitated when re-entering society. CSNSW is required to review inmate classifications once every 12 months in order to evaluate the behaviour of an offender. This ensures that the conditions of the offender are what are required for rehabilitation or incapacitation, which as previously stated satisfies the needs of the society.
Parole is the release of prisoners before completion of a full prison sentence.

This is offered to provide an incentive for “good behaviour” and ultimately rehabilitation during a sentence. The granting and restriction of parole is outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and allows those with sentences of more than three years to be released after they have served their minimum sentences. The encouragement of rehabilitation upholds the rights of the community and offender, as the offender’s rights are not undermined by through excessively restricting their freedoms and the reintroduction of the rehabilitated offender into society minimises the threat of reoffending. However, the reward of parole for some offenders has resulted in community dissatisfaction. The Age article “Adrian Bayley should not have been on parole” represents a social concern regarding the leniency of parole for violent sexual offenders. The release of the evidently non-rehabilitated offender resulted in a breach of parole and the sexual assault and murder of Jill Meagher, a 29 year old Melbournian woman. As a result of the injustice of the lenient decision and subsequent community retaliation, new parole laws were introduced in Victoria during 2014. This legislation is outlined in the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Act 2014, and the penalty for breaching parole includes up to three months jail and/or a $4200 fine. Thus, there is greater justice for the victim and especially the community through the discouragement of crime for offenders who may not be rehabilitated and are released on

parole.
Preventive and continued detention refers to the detaining of those without charge who have been suspected of serious crimes. This is fairly controversial due to the perceived imbalance of rights and potential for abuse of power. Additionally, extending an offender’s sentence or arresting an individual without charge may lessen the likelihood of rehabilitation for the offender, and contribute to negative experiences with the justice system for innocent individuals. Sydney Morning Herald article “Law change for violent criminals condemned” criticises continued detention due to the imbalance of rights of the offender. The article states that offenders should not be punished “unless they’ve done something wrong and that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. This is supported by international law, and some argue that preventive detention violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that “No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention”. However, preventive and continued detention is necessary in fulfilling community expectations when applied to serious offences. The high risk associated with releasing a terror suspect into society is perceived to be of more significance than the rights of the offender, especially due to the profound impact of the offence. Hence, while preventative and continued detention may restrict the rights of the offender and their access to rehabilitation, the needs of the community and requirement for incapacitation of the accused/offender may overcome the needs of the offender.
Ultimately, post sentencing considerations vary in balancing the rights of the offender, victim and society. Therefore, these considerations also vary in their achievement of justice, as justice requires the legal system to be fair.

Links (Not in info booklet):
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/adrian-bayley-should-not-have-been-on-parole-ian-callinan-20130820-2s8bt.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-25/tougher-parole-laws-in-response-to-jill-meagher27s-murder2c-t/4778982
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/publications/research-papers/download/36-research-papers/13613-corrections-amendment-parole-reform-bill-2013-final