HSC 2007 Crime Essay
a) A penalty no longer available in Australia is capital punishment. An example of this is hanging.
b) The three elements of crime are actus reus (the illegal act), mens rea (the intent or guilty mind) and causation (the direct link).
c) One condition that has led to the reform of criminal law is new concepts of justice. In relation to this, new methods of determining punishments or dealing with crimes have been introduced.
Circle sentencing (as seen on Inside the Circle) is a form of restorative justice available to Aboriginal people in many towns throughout Australia. It is effective in that it ensures a low rate of recidivism, and is resource efficient. Circle sentencing stops the need for the case to be brought in front of a court. It is necessary for the defendant to plead guilty to be eligible for this new concept of justice. The victim is able to attend, and is therefore seen as effective for both parties, but can sometimes be seen as too lenient.
The introduction of majority verdicts is also another new concept of justice. This see’s that only 11 of the 12 jurors have to agree. Majority verdicts also help to avoid a hung jury, and therefore are economically efficient.
One more new concept of justice is the introduction of Victim Impact Statements. An example of this is seen is “How a few terrible seconds have affected the lives of six people” (NH 19.08.08). These statements allow the victims to feel some form of personal retribution, and therefore feel more content that justice is being served.
Another condition that has led to a reform in criminal law is failure of existing laws.
In relation to Byron’s law, which is officially known as the Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Act 2005. This law, although extremely slow to take effect, means that mothers of unborn children who are killed are able to get justice. The previous act failed to protect unborn children, and due to one mothers continuous fighting, as seen in “Byron’s Law born out of road rage death” (DT 26.02.03), a new law has been implemented.
The law also failed in relation to gang rape. The Crimes (Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Act 2002 saw that the maximum penalty for gang rape was increased to life. In the case of R v Skaf (2002-2006), other acts were also put into use, including Criminal Procedure (Sexual Offence Evidence) Act 2003. This act ensured that is the accused was to defend himself in trial; he was not allowed to cross-examine the witness himself. Although his own questions could be asked, a lawyer had to do this for him.
d) The purposes of punishment are rehabilitation, incapacitation, redintegrative shaming, deterrence, and retribution.
Rehabilitation is set up to change the behaviour of the offender, to prevent them from re-offending. There are many programs put in place to assist in this being effective, such as a Community Restorative Centre (as seen on 4 Corners – Road to Return). This centre is funded by corrective services, and although it lacks funding, is effective in that is has reduced recidivism rate to 15%. It has a focus on housing, education and employment, and only targets and deals with the most difficult cases. The Super Max documentary stated that seven out of ten people re-offend if incapacitated.
Incapacitation is where offenders are taken from society and put in a gaol to protect both themselves and society as a whole. Serious sex offenders are usually kept in a different part of the gaol as a preventative measure from the other prisoners. They are not eligible to go up for parole until there is some proof of rehabilitation. Incapacitation is seen as effective for the moment, but not in the long run. There is a high recidivism rate involved. There can also be a strict parole involved once they are released from prison, as seen in the case of Peter Boys, the teacher who was charged with numerous sex related offences.
Re-integrative Shaming such as youth conferencing, see’s the offender having to sit and face their victim, while the victim has their say about the crime and its effect. It is a form of restorative justice, and is seen as highly effective in comparison to incapacitation. A Current Affair ran a story about youth who were given community service to complete as a punishment. When completing their punishment, they had to wear a bright fluro coloured vest, stating ‘community service’, so everyone around them could tell that they had committed a crime, and was doing their community service.
Deterrence can be specific or general. Specific deterrence aims at dissuading the offender from committing crime in the future for fear of punishment. General deterrence aims at dissuading the general public from committing a similar crime. An example of general deterrence is seen in the article “If only Simon had just sold heroin” (DT 21.02.03). This case saw Simon Jenkins receive a higher fine for vandalising a library book as his first offence, than a man with numerous drug charges who got caught selling heroin. This excessive fine attempted to make the general public weary of committing acts of vandalism to public property, yet did not deter a particular individual.
Retribution can be explained simply as ‘an eye for an eye’. It is generally more satisfying for the victim, yet it is an uncommon occurrence. If retribution were distributed in its more pure sense, those who commit a murder would be given the death penalty, which is no longer available in Australia. Retribution see’s that the punishment fits the crime. An example of this that still exists today is a community service order, ie if an individual vandalises a wall, then they can be made to clean it off themselves.
