Phoebe 123
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 96
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
Just attempted the "Demonstrate why commitment to criminal laws is not shown equally across the community." I had 3 reasons, so out of 6 marks this time, instead of 10. If I can find 2 more reasons why, I will re-edit it.
There are several reasons why commitment to criminal laws is not equally distributed across the community. These reasons range from self-interest to as the saying goes “simply having the blood of a criminal.” A common and noteworthy example why the law is frequently broken is self-interest. The main meaning of self-interest is breaking the law for one’s own self-serving purposes. For example, shown in ‘R vs. Stevenson’ (2004), Drew and three other men self-servingly hacked into a banking system and stole several million dollars to finance their retirement. Weeks after this case, (after the criminal trial process was over) published on 23rd November 2004; the ABC published a newspaper article called “Three other men plead guilty for a lesser charge in returning for giving evidence against perpetrator.” Another example is ‘R vs. Sheridan,’ Mrs. Sheridan (a married woman with 3 teenage kids) was struggling to gain income due to being fired from her high income job. So, for own self-serving purposes, disregarding the law, they maliciously hacked into a friend’s balance account, and stole approximately $2 million, according to court officials and arresting officers at the time. Another reason why commitment to criminal laws is not equally distributed across the community is because of social factors; such as particular upbringing, their attitude towards the law, inexperience. For example, in ‘R vs. Davidson (`2006)’; a 16 year old juvenile offender was tried for abusing, carrying and sharing illicit drugs. When asked for a statement from police, he gave a detailed explanation of why he wasn’t aware of the severe ness and penalties; due to his family background, and how he was raised; his upbringing. During which the case was heard in the Children’s Court, the ABC published a newspaper article in an attempt to raise awareness of juvenile crime; it was called “Justice Action” and it was published on the 7th of February 2006. Another reason why commitment to criminal laws is not equally distributed across the community is due to some people simply having it in their:”veins.” For example, some don’t have a social conscience, and are a cold-blooded murderer/sexual assaulter naturally. It’s just “who” they are, and society needs to be protected from these sorts of criminals. A criminal who has it in their “veins” will usually have a large number of victims, and must be doing it continuously, not just a “one-off.” As supported in ‘R vs. Tylo (1992), who was sentenced to 25 years for a trend in sexually assaulting 6 children across the same community; the Sunday Herald released a newspaper article called “Child molester sentenced to 25 years terming him an “child molester” as the offensive act was done repeatedly.
There are several reasons why commitment to criminal laws is not equally distributed across the community. These reasons range from self-interest to as the saying goes “simply having the blood of a criminal.” A common and noteworthy example why the law is frequently broken is self-interest. The main meaning of self-interest is breaking the law for one’s own self-serving purposes. For example, shown in ‘R vs. Stevenson’ (2004), Drew and three other men self-servingly hacked into a banking system and stole several million dollars to finance their retirement. Weeks after this case, (after the criminal trial process was over) published on 23rd November 2004; the ABC published a newspaper article called “Three other men plead guilty for a lesser charge in returning for giving evidence against perpetrator.” Another example is ‘R vs. Sheridan,’ Mrs. Sheridan (a married woman with 3 teenage kids) was struggling to gain income due to being fired from her high income job. So, for own self-serving purposes, disregarding the law, they maliciously hacked into a friend’s balance account, and stole approximately $2 million, according to court officials and arresting officers at the time. Another reason why commitment to criminal laws is not equally distributed across the community is because of social factors; such as particular upbringing, their attitude towards the law, inexperience. For example, in ‘R vs. Davidson (`2006)’; a 16 year old juvenile offender was tried for abusing, carrying and sharing illicit drugs. When asked for a statement from police, he gave a detailed explanation of why he wasn’t aware of the severe ness and penalties; due to his family background, and how he was raised; his upbringing. During which the case was heard in the Children’s Court, the ABC published a newspaper article in an attempt to raise awareness of juvenile crime; it was called “Justice Action” and it was published on the 7th of February 2006. Another reason why commitment to criminal laws is not equally distributed across the community is due to some people simply having it in their:”veins.” For example, some don’t have a social conscience, and are a cold-blooded murderer/sexual assaulter naturally. It’s just “who” they are, and society needs to be protected from these sorts of criminals. A criminal who has it in their “veins” will usually have a large number of victims, and must be doing it continuously, not just a “one-off.” As supported in ‘R vs. Tylo (1992), who was sentenced to 25 years for a trend in sexually assaulting 6 children across the same community; the Sunday Herald released a newspaper article called “Child molester sentenced to 25 years terming him an “child molester” as the offensive act was done repeatedly.
Last edited:
