Hey literal neighbour again,
1. Usually sentences are singular in that it's either a fine, imprisonment, CCO etc. In the case for sexual assault, it varies significantly especially when you're taking into account aggravating/mitigating factors. So the sanctions for sexual assault are quite dynamic across the country but in Victoria, they tend to be prison sentences only as outlined in the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 Sect. [19]. Also remember the five purposes of sanctions, the judge would have total discretion over the sentencing and I would trust that they would give appropriate sanctions.
2. 'Sanctioning' is not a pre-trial procedure, sanctioning itself is related to sentencing which is practically the last step in any criminal case where an accused pleads or is found guilty. I don't think there are any 'problems' with sanctioning, sanctioning is what the prosecution looks forward to the most in the end and sanctioning is where justice is usually served. It's simply integral of the CJS.
3. It's ironic that you ask this when you've got a 95 under you sleeve and in particular that I got lower than you. I'll leave this to the others since I'm not the one to be answering this! Haha!!!
Anyway, go
od luck, we'll smash it!
thanks a lot for the help and boost neighbour! I'm sure we'll be fine
Just re.
2. That was the actual question from somewhere! "what could be one problem in relation to sanctioning that involves cost or time?"
suggest a reform or something I don't remember.
That's why I thought just like you, why would there be a problem? That's why I was thinking of events
leading up to it then there sure are problems committal and pre-trial procedures as we all know!
But hang on, we could discuss three different sanctions in three separate paras now that I think about it! + link them to their purposes and then evaluate
I really don't know! Ah this is stuck in my head now!!
But this is a call out to anyone else that can help!!
also just asking my third question again if people have any idea or have come across writing such an answer:
3. If a question asks for e.g. evaluate how something upholds the principles of justice and this question is say for 6-8 marks, would you need to analyse all three? (fairness, equality and access)?
I get how you can link things back to all 3, but sometimes you can run the risk of writing something unclear and irrelevant to a principle. So in this case, would you still get marks if you talked about 2 principles? But still have 3 paras?
Thank you so much neighbour and everyone!!
I'd love to hear some thoughts about these 2 questions!