The Criminal Justice System in Australia
According to Australian Bureau of Statistics (2000), the criminal justice system consist of the state and the commonwealth institutions, agencies, departments and personnel responsible for dealing with the justice aspects of crime, victims of crime, persons accused or convicted of committing a crime, and related issues and processes. In all States and Territories, two systems of criminal justice exist the federal criminal justice system, based on offences against Commonwealth law, and the relevant state system, based on offences against state laws. Criminal law is administered principally through the federal, State and Territorial police forces, the National Crime Authority, the courts and State and Territorial corrective or penal services. There is no independent federal corrective service, and the relevant state or Territorial agencies provide corrective services for federal offenders.
The States and Territories have independent powers in relation to all matters that are not otherwise specifically vested in the Commonwealth of Australia, and it is the statue law and the common law of the States and the Territories that primarily govern the day-to-day lives of most Australians. The State and Territories have powers to enact their own Criminal law, while the Commonwealth has the powers to enact laws, including sanctions for criminal offences, in relation to its responsibilities under the Constitution. Thus, in effect, there are nine different systems of criminal law in existence in Australia.
The various agencies that comprise the criminal justice system can be seen as acting within a broader process in which criminal incidents and offenders move through a number of stages. Police agencies are responsible for the prevention, detection and investigations of crime. When an alleged offender is detected by police, charges may then be laid before a criminal court. The court, consisting of a judicial officer, a jury (in the higher courts), the prosecution and the defence, determines the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In addition to the court itself, there are a number of other agencies involved in the court process. These include legal representatives for the prosecution and defence. Police prosecutors are generally responsible for less serious matters heard before courts of summary jurisdiction, while Crown Prosecutors normally handle prosecution of the more serious matters dealt with at a Supreme or Intermediate ( District or Country) court levels. For defendant, legal aid may be available to handle their defence. Following the hearing of the charges, in cases where a finding of guilt is made by the court a sentence may be imposed. Fines and bonds are the most common penalties handed down by the courts. The more serious sentences are administered by correctional services agencies. This may include imprisonment, community work of various kinds and some types of bonds. A number of jurisdictions have also introduced new penalties such as home detention or work camps which are also administered by correctional agencies. For victims of crime, compensation may be available through the courts, and this is normally handled through a special tribunal. The state provides compensation to victims who can demonstrate an injury or suffering as a result of a criminal incident. The state will then seek these funds from the offender, if they have been identified and convicted.
Under the federal systems of government in Australia, aside from foreign affairs and defence, the States and Territories assume major responsibilities and powers with regard to most social issues affecting their residents. The parliaments or legislators in each jurisdiction, therefore, have the law making powers in these matters. Legislative powers with respect to criminal law and the administration of criminal justice is one such power that rests with the six states and two Territories. There is, therefore, no single criminal justice system in Australia. The six states and the Northern Territory have their own criminal laws, police forces, courts, prisons and juvenile institutions, and other corrective and treatment services. The governments in each of these jurisdictions usually have ministers and attorneys-general responsible for different segments of the criminal justice system. States and territories appoint their own police chiefs, judges, corrective services heads, and so on. Since gaining self-government in 1989, the Australian Capital Territory also has its own criminal justice system, but the Australian Federal Police look after its policing and there are no prisons but there is a remand centre. In addition, the Commonwealth of Australia has significant responsibilities with respect to the administration of justice. In summary, there are several systems in Australia which, while similar, are individually unique (Mukherjee Graycar, 1997).
Policing liquor outlets.
Public, political and media preoccupation with illicit drug-related crime tends to obscure the crime problems caused by alcohol. More than four million Australians each year are verbally abused by someone affected by alcohol, while nearly a million each year are assaulted by someone under the influence of alcohol. Australian research has established a clear link between the amount of alcohol sold in a neighbourhood and the rate of assault, malicious damage to property and offensive behaviour. Liquor outlets have repeatedly been shown to be the source or site of a great deal of alcohol-related crime, then, is to keep tight control on locations where alcohol is sold, particularly where clientele of o liquor outlet consist mainly of young men. Instead of waiting for violence to occur on licensed premises and then responding to it, police can discourage violence by enforcing laws requiring the responsible service of alcohol. The effectiveness of this strategy was demonstrated in a study conducted in the early 1980s, in Torquay, England. With the cooperation of local licensees, groups of two or three police visited licensed premises in Torquay two or three times a week over the summer months. On each visit police spoke to bar staff and checked for underage drinkers and people who were visibly intoxicated. The researchers evaluating this new policing policy observed a substantial drop in arrests for anti-social behaviour during the period of its implementation and no similar drop in a comparison town where the policy wasnt introduced. It might be thought impractical for police to mount such an intensive operation in every hotel in the area. The majority of assaults on licensed premises however come from a small minority of licensed premises
The effectiveness of drug law enforcement.
There are a few more hotly debated or more resource intensive aspects of police work than drug law enforcement. If you ask police involvement in drug law enforcement to state their objective they will tell you that it is to disrupt illegal drug markets. From taxpayers perspective, this is only useful if it results in an improvement in public order or public amenity, suppresses illegal drug use and trafficking or reduces drug related crime (including organized crime). Up until a few years ago, Australian research also painted a similarly dismal picture of the effectiveness of supply-side drug law enforcement in raising illicit drug prices. One study, completed in 1997, found no relationship at all between the quantities of heroin seized by authorities in Australia and the price, purity and availability of heroin on the street in Cabramatta. The Australian heroine shortage, which began in late 2000, however, has dramatically altered our perspective on the potential effectiveness of supply-side drug law enforcement. The shortage sent heroin prices skyrocketing and, to the surprise of many, heroin users responded to the price increase by reducing both their heroin use and the amount of money they spend on heroin. Evidence has now begun to mount suggesting that the drop in heroin use may also have brought about a significant reduction in drug-related property crime.
Crime rates and police performance.
The overall volume of crime in a state or county in a country is shaped in part by forces (e.g. the prevalence of inadequate parenting, the level of poverty and unemployment, the advert of new and desirable consumer goods) over which police exert little or no control. The capacity of State and Territory police to influence crime is further restricted by the fact that some of the most important drivers of crime (e.g. the flow of illicit drugs or guns into Australia) can only be influenced (if at all) by action on the part of federal law enforcement agencies.
Another important, but often overlooked, constraint on police ability to control overall levels of crime is that any determined attempt to do could easily disadvantage rural and regional Australia. The areas of a State or Territory that contribute the most to its total volume of crime are not necessarily the areas where citizens are most at risk. The Blacktown statistical subdivision in NSW contributes nearly 4.5 times as many offences to the State total for assault than the Far West Statistical division. Yet the rate assault per head of population is nearly 2.5 times higher in the Far West than in Blacktown. If a police commissioner were given a directive to focus on reducing the total volume of assult offences in NSW, he or she would be sorely tempted to move police resources from towns with high crime rates but low crime volumes and concentrate them in suburban areas of the State where most of the offences ate. That might be politically astute but it could hardly be called equitable (Weatherburn, 2004).
Historically, indigenous Australians were generally denied full citizenship rights, whether civil, political or economic. Non-Europeans were also subject to exclusions. Formal discrimination both against Indigenous Australians and within immigration policy was gradually dismantled. From the 1970s there was also an increased preparedness to believe that equal citizenship required acknowledgement of difference, whether of the special status of Indigenous peoples or of the cultural differences of immigrant communities (enshrined in policies of multiculturalism). Another shift in the 1990s, epitomized by the rise of the populist politician Pauline Hanson, brought a return to idea that equal treatment must mean the same treatment, regardless of historic and cultural difference. The construction of a mainstream citizen privileged some groups and marginalized others. During the first half of the 20th century immigration policies were designed to exclude particular nationalities. However, since the 1950s non-British immigrant have been encouraged to come to Australia and, since the 1970s, direct discrimination against non-European has been discontinued. From this time policies have been enacted to end discrimination on the grounds of race, colour and beliefs. Since 1973 Australia has had an official policy of multiculturalism and the Commonwealth and the state and Territories all have specific bodies to ensure access and equity in relation to the provision of government services and to promote a multicultural community. All jurisdictions also have racial discrimination and racial vilification legislation, but not all include criminal sanctions for serious forms of racial vilification and only some have religious vilification protection.
Access and equity and equal opportunity for immigrants.
Until the 1960s access to public services and public employment was largely restricted to citizens or British subjects. With the arrival of numerous migrants from non-English-speaking countries, governments began to open up and modify policies and services. Further reforms occurred following the 1978 Galbally Report on Migrant Services and Programs, which recommended the provision of some ethno-specific services to provide for instances where mainstream policies and practices did not take sufficient account of the particular needs of immigrants. Access and equity principles were developed in the 1980s to ensure that immigrant Australians were able to benefit equally from government programs and services. Today Commonwealth government departments and agencies are required to report annually on access and equity initiatives under the Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society (1998). The charter was also endorsed by the Australian Local Government Association, which is now represented on the Ministerial Council on Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. A number of large metropolitan councils have extensive multicultural policies, Moreland Council in Melbourne being an outstanding example. Among other initiatives, Victoria passed the Multicultural Victoria Act 2004 to enshrine the principles of multiculturalism in law and require government departments to report annually to the Minister for Multicultural Affairs on their achievements. In New South Wales, the Ethnic Affairs Commission Amendment Act 1997 reinforced the role of the commission in monitoring progress of access and equity in government bodies, including annual reporting by the Department of Local Government on access and equity policies on local councils. Australian governments, starting with New South Wales in 1981 and then the Commonwealth in 1984, also amended their public service act to require the preparation of equal employment opportunity programs for women, immigrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds, Indigenous Australians and people with disabilities. Public sector agencies were required to identify barriers to equal opportunity and prepare management plans to remove such barriers (Sawer, Abjorensen Larkin, 2009).
Human Rights in Australia
Human rights should, by definition, be the same in Australia as everywhere else. Human rights are those rights that apply to people by virtue of other being human, not by virtue of their nationality or their race or gender or status, or any other attribute. Human rights are universal. They recognize the fundamental dignity and worth of the human person and the fact that everyone should have the opportunity to realize individual potential. The sanctity of human dignity is asserted in the tenets of all the worlds main religions and philosophies, thus giving human right a moral dimension. Australia, through the dedicated work of Dr H.V.Evatt (first in his capacity as Minister of state for External Affairs and then as president of the General Assembly), played an important role in creation of United Nations Organization and the subsequent formulation of Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) a document prepared by the United Nations and adopted by its General Assembly on 10 December 1948.
In conclusion, the fact that such a document had to be prepared at all was a measure of the shock waves spread from the realization of the Holocaust and other horrors of the Second World War. Social and Cultural rights are often referred to as constituting an International Bill of Rights. The specific convention dealing with racial and sex discrimination are sometimes included within this description. Collectively, the UN has adopted a range of human rights instruments that can be described in four broad categories
Civil and political rights-such as the right to life, liberty, a family, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, thought, and belief, to vote, a fair trail and privacy.
Economic, social and cultural rights-such as the right to adequate food and water, health care, education, a clean environment, cultural practices and welfare assistance.
Humanitarian rights-such as the rights of those involved in or affected by armed conflict, and treatment of prisoners of war, shipwrecked or wounded people.
Specific rights-the rights of specific categories of people such as women, children, people with disabilities, indigenous people, refugees, minority groups and workers (Jupp, 2001).
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment