Criminology

Criminal justice systems usually comprise of the police force, the judiciary and the correctional facilities. The departments within a criminal justice may vary depending on the state in question. However, the three aforementioned are the basic unitscomponents that usually make up a criminal justice system. Criminal justice systems are charged with a unique responsibility of ensuring that justice is served to the community which it serves in addition to other functions. However, a fundamental question that has been raised of late regarding various countries criminal justice systems is the fairness and effectiveness with which they serve their respective population. Australian criminal justice system just like the others has not been spared.

The Australian federal system of government is constituted of states and territories which are bestowed with key responsibilities and powers regarding the social issues that affect their respective residents. (Odgers  Yeo, 2005)  Among such legislative powers bestowed to this states includes the criminal justice system administration. Six states and two territories thus possess legislative mandate with respective to their criminal justice. This in essence translates to mean that no single criminal justice system exists within Australia but rather the respective states and territories run independent criminal justice systems. The independent criminal justice systems in Australia are made up of the police, the judiciary, correctional facilities which include the prisons, juvenile correctional facilities and facilities offering corrective as well as treatment services. (Odgers  Yeo, 2005)  However, the federal government runs a criminal justice system in tandem with the relevant states criminal justice systems. Basically, each state accommodates two criminal justice systems which include that of the federal government and that provided by the state itself. Notably though is the fact that actual administration is employed by the relevant states criminal justice system organs.

The Australian criminal justice system has however been a subject of incessant debate of late regarding its fairness and effectiveness as may be reasonably expected by the population with which it serves. While some have argued that the system has failed to meet the desired public expectations, others have been quick to assert the systems effectiveness in offering of justice to the public. This paper will undertake an analysis regarding its contradicting position on the statement that asserts that the Australian criminal justice system is about as fair and as effective as the citizens have the right to expect. This will be done by addressing some of the key aspects that put to question the effectiveness and fairness of a system. These will include take a special focus on its handling of various identity groups as well the trends witnessed in its remand custodies. 

Identity in Australian criminal justice system
The failure of a criminal justice system to offer fair and effective judgment may be dictated by the role that identity plays within the system. An ineffective and unfair system allows identity to determine the level of accessibility to the power resources. In such a system, the punishments and rewards that criminal justice offers are determined by ones identity within the society. Such identities may include gender, age, sexual orientation, race, social class among others. While the criminal justice system in Australia has made a great leap towards eradication of cases of identity based discrimination, it still forms part of the system with some identity groups receiving fairer treatment as compared to the others. This in essence contradicts the general principle of fairness that a justice system is expected to offer to the society its serves.

Role of sexual orientation in criminal justice system in Australia
Institutionalized discrimination against gas and lesbians is still a major area that draws negative sentiments. It is no surprise that recent researches have revealed that up to 30 of gays and lesbians have received some form of harassment in the hands of the officers charged with responsibility of enforcing the law. Given the lower rate of general public harassment by the police, this translates into a great concern aspect of discrimination within the system. (Baired et al, 1994)

Discrimination is likewise depicted the response taken by the gays in reporting of gay related crimes. Statistics have indicated that up to 44 of such crimes go unreported as a result of the gays lack of trust in the criminal justice system to assist them. (Takach, 1994) This resulted from the fact that most of those who had reported their cases had indicated receiving homophobic reaction from the police. Such inequality manifestations are believed to originate from the perceptions held by the public against homosexuality, a perception that is often characterized with fear, despise as well as ridicule. The result has thus been a clear depiction of the institution charged with management of criminal justice as systems of championing the rights of the heterosexuals rather than the rights of all. This in a form justifies both sexual and physical abuse against the homosexuals contrary to the expected approach. (Baired et al, 1994)

Gender in Australian criminal justice system
The genders interplay in the Australian criminal justice system is rather unique depending on the circumstance at hand. A more significant example is instances where women are the accused, the system regard of women as weaker gender results into lees punitive measures being taken against them as compared to males who engage in similar offenses. (Easteal, 2002) A close examination of the systems thus reveals favoritism to the advantage of the women in terms meting of punitive measures against offenders. Another heated are of discussion within the Australian criminal justice system is whether or not pre-menstrual syndromes application as a defense to committed crimes amounts to discrimination in favor of women and hence its acceptability in mitigation of cases.  On the other hand, the Australian courts have often been accused of favoring men over women when it comes to marriage and parenting rights. (Easteal, 2002)  The hanged definition of the sole parentage is believed to be the direct cause the cropping up of this kind of discrimination which requires women to offer proof that eliminates any reasonable doubts as to them not being engaged in relationships that may take the form of marriage before being awarded sole custodial rights.

The system has also faced increasing accusation of favoritism regarding its treatment of the men dependent women as compared to their independent counterparts. For instance it is not surprising for a divorced woman to get stiffer penalties as compared to a married woman when both are charged with similar crimes. This translates to a discouragement for independence of women by a system that is supposed to promote equality regardless of gender orientation. (Andersen and Patricia, 1998) The legal system is also tainted with the burden of having divided itself along areas deemed gender oriented. Such includes more women acting as court clerks as compared to legal counsels. The work context is liable for such orientations as women are seemingly less aware of recruitment procedures needless to mention that several positions within the system are unofficially reserved for men.

A similar scenario is witnessed within the police force where despite women having been accepted into the force, their access to resources and positions remain rather unlimited. For instance, a research in the New South Wales revealed that the middle and top ranks remained predominantly a male reserved territory. (Odgers  Yeo, 2005) most profound though is the response accorded to female complaints. Prosecution cases regarding domestic violence are minimal with the police taking little effort ta prosecuting such. Additionally, rape victims have often cried foul at the kind of treatment accorded to them by the law enforcement officials as compared to social organizations and help centers.

Race in the Australian Criminal Justice System
The Australian race issue mainly revolves around the aboriginal offending. Tyler in his book for instance notes that regions with high aboriginal populations have been subjected to severely reinforced crime control as compared to areas occupied with other races. (Tyler, 1998) The increased crime rates amongst the race of people in Australia have led to biased approach by the criminal justice with more increased likelihood of being labeled as criminals even in instances where no adequate proof of the same exists. Research has also indicated that they are likely to get lengthier prison sentences as compared to their counterparts of different racial orientation.

In general the criminal justice system in Australias treatment of the aboriginals is often associated with various characteristics that clearly indicate discrimination. Such include higher arrest prevalence and chances, increased likelihood of facing criminal related charges, susceptibility to high bails, increased possibility of conviction, and less likelihood of access to plea bargains. (Andersen  Patricia, 1998) The presence of races perceived as dominant and superior has in essence compromised he quest for justice hence increased likelihood of less dominant races being subjected to acts of inequality within the Australian criminal justice system. The result has been a negative perception of law enforcement agencies by such racial minorities. In equitable treatment of the racial minorities by the police has led to increased cynicism and suspicion of the law system characterized with fear and dislike against the Australian criminal justice system. This may as well be attributed as one of the major causes for increased recidivism amongst the Australian aboriginals.

Social class in the criminal justice system
The Australian criminal justice system may as well be held guilty of reinforcing negative societal attitudes amidst the Australian citizens considered economically challenged. The aspersion has led to branding of some groups as purely criminal leading to harsh penalty and treatment regimes as compared to other s considered socially angelic. The tailoring of the systems has often been accused to be in favor of the upper class of the society at the expense of the lower classes. For instance it would come as no surprise if an executive would easily get away with money laundering crime upon restitution while a single mother who committed a crime in an attempt at fending for his young son rots up in jail for the next five years. (Dunaway, 2000)

The law enforcement agencies are also surprisingly on the look out for minor offenders who happen to be the lower class individual. For instance is the application of the public order offense which ostensibly targets the law class disregarding other major crimes that are perpetuated by the upper class or rather the cream of the society Reported crimes response likewise takes a discriminatory approach resulting to the minimal reports by the low income earners. (Dunaway, 2000)  The low income earners are treated with suspicion from the reporting phase as well in circumstances where they are reported for crimes of which they may have not committed an at times are forced to admit due to inaccessible to adequate legal representation. The time they spend in remand is additionally lengthier partly resulting from their inability to raise bails and partly resulting from their little knowledge regarding the rights they are entitled to. Statistics have reveled that up to 33 of arrested women have to endure long periods in remand due to lack of adequate funds to post bails for themselves. (Andersen  Patricia, 1998) The inequality propagated by such law enforcement institution rather that suppress crime serve to build a foundation for negative perception of the criminal justice system through its victimization of the poor and weak. (Andersen  Patricia, 1998)

Remand duration
Great concerns have arisen regarding custodial detention of individuals in remands as they await sentencing. Of concern though is when the number of such persons in remand rises to unreasonably high numbers. This in deed combined with the approach taken in handling of such persons may have the impact on denting the credibility a criminal justice system as a whole. Remanding of persons is usually a decision taken after careful consideration with regard to whether one presents a threat to the community or himself. Additionally such actions may be taken if ones freedom is believed to have the impact of obstructing the course of investigations. Likewise the possibility of individuals not attending the trials may likewise warrant detention in remands. (Carcach,  Grant, 2007)

The most unfortunate issue however, about the remanding issue is the fact that the low classes of the society are the one bearing its brunt either due to inaccessibility to bail funds, inaccessibility to legal representation among others. In the end inequality coupled with discriminatory practices platy a key role in determination of the period spent in remands by individuals. Additionally statistics have revealed a race oriented trend in terms of the number of those held in remands worth the aboriginals seemingly forming the bulk. This raises a new question regarding the handling of the minority races by the countrys criminal justice system.

Previous research indicates that between 1984 and 2004 the remanded prisoners proportion had increased from 12 to 20 percent and was still on an upward trend. (Carcach,  Grant, 2007) The unfortunate bit of this was the fact that a large proportion of this was attributed to the systems failure rather than the public. Such reasons included drug and mental health issues which ought to have been handled by care and rehabilitation centers, both formal and informal regulations within the police force, bail grant procedures and decisions among others. The end was a need to reform the system loopholes that allow for such scenarios to develop.

Conclusion
Inequality is the basis of lack of an effective and fairly acceptable institution to the public. Unfortunately, this is a plague that despite unrelenting efforts, the Australian criminal justice system still has to bear. Statistics have revealed that justice in Australia still remains subject to social status, racial affiliation, gender orientation among other factors which in essence propagate the development of discriminatory practices within the system. The result is an abject need for reformation and overhaul of the system to ensure accessibility to justice is equitable more so in the eyes of the public. Just like in the corporate world where it has been suggested that the witness of moral leadership translates into similar reaction by the stakeholders, morality needs to prevail within the criminal justice systems.
However, Australia cannot be crucified for such as over the years efforts have been put aimed at reforming the institution towards the better. However, this dream of a free and fair criminal justice system still remains an elusive mirage to most countries across the globe surprisingly not sparing even the land of freedom or rather America as one may prefer to call it. All the same this cannot justify the failure of a system as one individual crime is not a reasonable defense of another for committing the crime. In the end reforms remains a necessity within the Australian criminal justice system.