predictions (1 Viewer)

S

s9a

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2023
Messages
355
Gender
Female
HSC
2023
guysssss have yall memorised your essays
 
S

s9a

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2023
Messages
355
Gender
Female
HSC
2023
its_ace21 said:
random q but if the question is on police powers, what would u talk about
Click to expand...
One power of police in the criminal investigation process is the power of search and seizure. Under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Search and Powers) Act 2009 (NSW) police can apply to the Supreme Court for authority to enter premises and search them without the knowledge of the owner. One argument for the covert search is that it ensures police have reasonable suspicions based on evidence. The Code of Practice for CRIME (Custody, Rights, Investigation, Management and Evidence) is a set of rules which have been created in order to ensure a balance between protecting people’s rights and liberties and effective law enforcement. However, arguments against this police power include the suspects’ right to privacy. This may be an issue since the police do not have to inform the owner of the search for up to two years. As outlined in the article Latest police weapon: a secret search (SMH 5.3.09) “It seriously undermines the balance between the states right to investigate and prosecute crime and the rights of individuals to carry out their proper business and lives without fear of intrusion by the state”. Therefore there are both arguments for and against police to use this police power on individuals without reasonable suspicion as it affects their right to privacy.

The second police power during the crime investigation process is the power to arrest suspects. Arrest is to seize a person by legal authority and take them into custody. In the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) police must have a warrant, have reasonable suspicion and use reasonable force. Arguments for the power to arrest is that it provides a judicial safeguard for ordinary citizens by ensuring that police justify their suspicions and ensuring police do not abuse their powers. On the other hand, to protect the suspect police can only use reasonable force. For example, in the case R v Skardon (2011) who was charged and convicted of assault as owned in the article “Bond for police officer who threatened youth with gun” (NH 31.10.2011). Whilst thereare arguments for and against the power of police to use force to arrest suspects, the law ensures the use of force is reasonable to protect both police and suspects.

Once the accused is arrested under section 99 of Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act LEPRA, they are then charged. Article 11 of the UDHR states that an individual is innocent until proven guilty which hence reflects the concept of being found guilt within the CJS not when charged. Police cannot detain an individual without a valid reason. Under LEPRA, there are some circumstances where police can detain a person including where the individual is a suspect to crime, they are able to commit a crime (mens rea has been explicitly satisfied) or they have a warrant. Within Australia, police is always the last resort. After the interrogation stage, the police officially charge or release the accused. Once an individual is charged, they will be issued with a summons to appear in court. This is called a court attendance notice (CAN). The CAN outlines the details of the court case such as the type

of court, the type of offence and whether it is a trial by judge or jury. Once the CAN is officiated, this is where the accused will be able to apply for bail.



Examine the reporting and investigating of crime

Reporting crime is a vital component of the criminal investigation process. Unfortunately, police do not usually see or witness crimes being committed, and hence there is a great reliance on civilian discretion, proving to be successful in 2008, with information provided by the public through anonymous programs, such as Crime Stoppers, with its Annual Report stating that of the 50 000 calls they received, 300 arrests were made, including one instance of homicide. This positive legal enforcement reflects effectiveness in the criminal investigation process. Numerous factors which impact whether a citizen, victim or not, reports a crime to police include its triviality, cultural barriers of an individual, the system of policing (movement away from local cops), and fear of further attacks if offender is punished. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 60% of assault incidents go unreported, and 70% of sexual assault offences go unreported, with 80% of domestic violence victims failing to report their situation, according to the NSW Women’s Refuge Movement Resource Centre Research, highlighting an effectiveness in the extent to which the law can be made accessible, amenable and enforced.


DNA testing is an accurate way of identifying offenders in criminal investigations but can also be seen as an invasion of privacy. Under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 criminal suspects, volunteers and people convicted of a serious offence can be tested for DNA. Intimate forensic procedures (the taking of blood, saliva) and buccal swabs (scraping the lining of the mouth to obtain saliva and cells) can only be carried out on criminal suspects and serious offenders with informed consent or if authorised by court order. This act provides for the establishment of a DNA database which has proved effective in identifying criminals. Regardless of this there has been a lack of DNA laboratory resources in NSW, leading to a two year backlog as outlined in SMH 2.7.09 ‘DNA lab’s two-year lag hampers NSW forensic investigations’. In the case R v Boney, police attempted a mass DNA testing program by appealing to the men of Wee Waa to voluntarily submit saliva swab tests after a 93 year old woman was raped and bashed in her home. Stephen Boney was among the 500 men to partake in the testing and due to the immense pressure he felt, confessed to the police ten days later. This can infringe on the rights of both victims and society as the alleged offender could be still free causing the victim anguish and creating a threat to society. Apart from its accuracy, DNA testing can also have a mental impact on offenders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top