Broad sentencing discretion is central to the ability of the criminal courts to ensure justice is done in all the extraordinary variety of circumstances of individual offences and individual offenders.
— Chief Justice Spigelman
With reference to the quote, evaluate the effectiveness of sentencing and punishment as a means of achieving justice.Achieving justice demands a careful balancing act between the interests of the community, the concerns of the victim, and the best interests of the offender. Thus, flexibility and discretion in sentencing and punishment is critical to ensuring justice is done.
I like the ideas presented in this introduction - It definitely does the job in a basic sense. But you'll want it to be longer - Set up the paragraph topics and integrate the quote into your argument.Guideline sentencing effectively balances the interests of the community, the concerns of the victim, and the rights of the offender, informing the exercise of judicial discretion in the area of sentencing.
Nice evaluation at the forefront of the paragraph. Judicial guidelines derived from judgements decided on by the NSW Sentencing Council, such as the case R v Henry (1999), used for guilty pleas of armed robbery, ensures greater consistency and transparency in the way sentences are determined by judges.
Good. Statutory guidelines involve looking at acts of parliament such as the Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999 NSW.
Try not to fall into content based response, keep the focus on evaluation. You don't need to explain terms at all! Statutes enhance the integrity of the legal process, facilitating greater uniformity in dealing with the extraordinary variety of circumstances of individual offences.
Excellent point, R v Jacobs (2013) was the first case to issue the mandatory life sentence for murder of an on-duty police officer, under the Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Act 2011. Media coverage addressed concerns of whether rights of conflicting parties had been achieved; ‘Is a police man’s life worth more?’ SMH (2011).
I'd like to see you do more with this media article, you sort of acknowledge it exists but then immediately move on. R v Loveridge (2013) was a catalyst for change and reform, introducing an 8 year mandatory sentences for those convicted of ‘One punch’ laws under the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2014.
Would you say this was an effective change? Did it address what it was supposed to address, based on statistics? Through reform, tougher laws have championed the interests of the community, bringing sentences more into line with community standards. However, this statute has hindered the effectiveness of the CJS to perform with discretion and independence, impeding upon the rights of the accused and undermining fundamental rule of law principles.
Fantastic summary of the key idea of this paragraph. Chief Justice Spigelman expressed a need for guidelines with broad, flexible scope, to provide structure for judicial discretion, promote consistency, and increase public confidence in sentencing; “Guideline judgments are a mechanism for structuring discretion, not for restricting discretion. The continued existence of sentencing discretion is an essential component of the fairness of our criminal justice system.”
This is too late to be the first reference to the quotation - You've alluded to it, but it needs to be at the centre of attention!An effective and just punishment for the individual and society is based upon a combination of the four purposes of punishment defined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999 NSW. Deterrence discourages certain behaviours by providing consequences. Specific deterrence refers to punishment of the individual to discourage recidivism. General deterrence refers to punishment setting an example for future offenders.
Avoid content vomits like this - The marker knows this already! Assume they understand everything you say, chances are they do 
A BOSCAR 2006 investigation accounted for 41% of released prisoners reoffending within three years. Thus, incarceration is ineffective as a specific deterrent, failing to break the cycle of recidivism.
The structure of this argument is a little backwards, I'd have preferred, "Incarceration is ineffective, AS SHOWN BY these statistics." Retribution considers impact upon the victim, family, and community. Lengthy custodial sentences such as the doubling of Kieren Loveridge’s sentence on appeal, are an example of punishment aimed at retribution. Rehabilitation aims to reform the offender. b]Avoid content vomit[/b]. This benefits the community by reducing the likelihood of recidivism. In looking at the high rate of recidivism within the first two years of conviction; 29% or 56% for young offenders, it is evident that justice is more likely to be achieved if rehabilitation is prioritised. Rehabilitation through the Drug Court effectively reduces recidivism by 37% (BOSCAR 2010). Conversely, rehabilitation is criticised for failing to adequately retribute those who have suffered. Although effective in ensuring society feels protected, incapacitation places financial stress on society at large, costing over $50 000/pa. Justice is not achieved in the long run as money would be more efficiently spent addressing underlying causes.
This paragraph feels a lot messier and less cohesive than the first paragraph. No judgement is established at the start, not as much analysis and less effective evaluation - Definitely not quite the same quality as above.The balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors is integral towards achieving justice in sentencing. Aggravating factors increase criminal culpability. This allows cases where the offender has abused a position of authority, such as the John Ellis case where he was sexually abused as an altar boy, to be dealt with more severely. This reflects society’s heightened level of denunciation associated with these crimes. Mitigating factors reduce criminal culpability and consider circumstances which provide context to the crime. This enables broad sentencing discretion of subjective factors; character reference, prior conviction, guilty plea, assisting police, and honest display of remorse with prospects for rehabilitation.
This paragraph doesn't do much to evaluate the effectiveness of anything, much more like a content splurge. This is an example of a paragraph that you'd ignore when you shift this over to something to write in the exam room, it won't do anything for you!Victims are guaranteed rights under the Victims Rights Act 1996. Victim Impact Statements (VIS) convey intimate insight to the impact of the offenders’ actions.
This is content - The marker knows these things already! This effectively facilitates access to just outcomes for those impacted, by compelling judicial discretion and possible aggravating factors such as in Aguirre v Regina (2010).
Try not to JUST reference a case and immediately move on. Good that you aren't lingering on case details that aren't important, but you still need to DO something with it. An important case to look at in terms of the role of the victim is R v Loveridge (2014). The judge considered aggravating factors; violent nature, and mitigating factors; offender’s display of remorse, disadvantaged background. On appeal, the sentence was doubled to a non-parole period of 10 years, reflecting the need for retribution to ensure a just outcome for the victim. A media article ‘Thomas Kelly Death was Never Murder’ (SMH 2014), described this as “trial by media”. This case highlights the controversy surrounding VIS, as the CJS struggles to balance the demands from the victim, with just outcomes for the accused. As put by Justice Ron Howie, “Judges have to remind the public they do not sentence for the victim, but for the community.” Only then can justice be achieved on a more consistent basis.
Not much evaluation here, more content than anything else. You've also (I've just realised) not been integrating the stimulus!Appeals are a means of ‘ensuring justice is done in all the extraordinary variety of circumstances of individual offences and individual offenders’. However, in the case R v AEM; KEM; MM (2002), the Crown appealed to the Criminal Court of Appeal against the leniency of a sentence given for a serious case of aggravated sexual assault in company. On appeal, the original sentences where more than doubled, from five and six, to 13 and 14 years’ imprisonment. Thus, ineffectiveness rises when there has been a failure to achieve justice the first time round, putting financial pressure on courts and being time consuming. Further ineffectiveness can be seen in R v Leung (2009, 2011 and 2013), where the defendant was tried three times for the same crime and was found not-guilty the first two times, wasting the CJS’s resources.
You need proper judgements at the start and end of your paragraphs - Are appeals effective or ineffective when considered holistically? In between the two? Exploring either side is definitely okay but you want to make sure the marker knows that you aren't just rambling and throwing content and LCM's without consideration, which is sort of what this seems like. It needs more structure and purpose!Penalties achieve justice by upholding community values and demonstrating enforcement of the law, and vary with respect to a judge’s discretion.
Sort of have a judgement here, but not the most obvious - Try to make it a more obvious part of all of your introductions! Fines; (Section 17) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, are appropriate for strict liability or regulatory offences, resource-efficient, and raise revenue for governments to use in other areas.
Nice considerations, but I'd still like a more obvious judgement (either now or after you delve into disadvantages. However as a ‘specific’ deterrent, fines disadvantage particular demographics, thus promoting institutionalised inequity. Furthermore, imprisonment accounts for a large portion of the CJS’s ineffectiveness.
Why? This feels a little like a standalone statement, perhaps adding a statement like "especially in dealing with ________," to flow into the next part of the argument. Cohesion is important! The NSW Department of Juvenile Justice spends 48% of their budget keeping young offenders in custody, but no link has been found with decreased recidivism.
Great! Just finish with "thus demonstrating the ineffectiveness of juvenile detention," for example, again it is all about obvious judgements! 27% of Australia’s prisoners are Indigenous, but Indigenous Australians make up only 3% of our total population.
So? Link this to a judgement explicitly! Therefore, the over-representation in Indigenous incarceration accounts for great ineffectiveness as “Nearly 20 years after a Royal Commission into black deaths in custody recommended jail be used as a last resort, the proportion of indigenous prisoners has doubled.” Locking Out Rehabilitation (SMH 2009).
In involving a wider spectrum of interested people into the decision-making process, diversionary programs are successful alternatives to traditional modes of sentencing. The Magistrate’s Early Referral into Treatment (MERIT) programme breaks the cycle of drug abuse and crime by addressing underlying mental health and social welfare issues. BOCSAR (2009) found that within 12 months, reoffending dropped from 49% to 35%.
Nice -
This was effective, and here's my proof. Simple. Good work. Conversely, the programme reduces personal accountability by focusing more on the causes of criminality rather than impacts. Circle sentencing is an alternative court for sentencing adult indigenous Australians where guilt is openly admitted. As making it meaningful by inviting community members and elders to take part in the sentencing process, recidivism rates and Aboriginal confidence in the criminal justice system improves. The Young Offenders Act 1997 allows referrals to Youth Justice Conferences.
Make sure you are evaluating these alternative methods, not just stating what they are! However, Dr Don Weatherburn indicated that this alternative is no more effective than the NSW Children’s Court in reducing juvenile recidivism; “Those who participate in YJC’s find the experience very rewarding, but we may need to look elsewhere for programs that reduce the risk of juvenile reoffending.”
Nice inclusion of quote. Ultimately, these alternative methods of sentencing are seen as coinciding, not replacing traditional forms of sentencing, and play a significant role in achieving greater equality, fairness and access within the sentencing and punishment process.
Nice concluding sentence - The argument in this paragraph was quite strong, simple and direct - Good work! In assessing the implications of post-sentencing considerations in achieving justice, the consequences of these decisions must be examined. In Police v Power (2007), the protective custody of Patrick Power, deputy DPP of NSW, failed to serve justice. Having been found in possession of child pornography and sentenced 15 months, Power only served 8 as he had been responsible for putting some of his fellow inmates in prison.
Be sure to fully wrap up this thought with an evaluation - Was it an effective decision? Preventative detention as seen with the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2016 NSW, issues police the ability to detain and question terror suspects for 14 days without charge. Although effective in protecting the community, the rights of the individual are undermined.
More specific? Under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), released sexual offenders against children are put on the Australian National Child Offender Register (ANCOR) for at least 8 years. Ineffectiveness is seen with the push to remove young offender ‘sexters’ from this list, as rehabilitation and reintegration into the community is the primary goal. This is seen in a media article from 2016; “Issues of sex-texting for your offenders under review”.
Be sure your paragraphs have a proper conclusion.Sentencing and punishment emphasises the limitations in achieving a reasonable and effective balance between the rights of the suspects, the accused and the community. These examples reveal that when one person’s rights are respected, another’s are infringed upon. While to some extent balance is achieved, this balance is not always entirely effective.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Free Legal Essay Marking! (Read 142641 times)