The types of penalties available in the criminal justice system are Imprisonment, Home Detention, Fine, Bond, Community Service, and Periodic Detention. Penalties no longer available are the death penalty (capital punishment) and corporal punishment. The law, as we know it, attempts to keep pace with our ever-changing community and society values and beliefs. This is why our Australian Parliament needs to constantly apply law reform to amend laws and make them better suited to suit our community values and beliefs.
For example, most of us amongst society believe that children are relatively innocent human beings, and any child under the age of 10 is free from the presumption of mens rea (that is, the intent behind a crime.) In NSW the age of criminal responsibility is defined by the statute Children's Criminal Proceedings Act 1987. The hearings of crimes committed by children are dealt with in the Children's Court. This court only hears cases from juvenile offenders under the age of 18. Imprisonment is seen as the very last resort to punishment. Children are given far more leniency in the eyes of the law as they are viewed with the concept and belief of being inexperienced and unable to have the direct cold-blooded intention to commit a crime. Demonstration of this is clearly seen in the case of State of NSW vs. Summers (2007). The events of this case, as it turned out, Mike Summers; a 14 year old was witnessed by his next-door neighbor to be carrying and directly testing illicit drugs. This was reported to police, who questioned the parents, who denied any involvement or knowledge. Other than the neighbor’s claim, there were no other statements reported or any evidence found that supported what the witness claimed. As a result of this, and police’s discretion in respecting the notion that a young teenager cannot be accused of committing one of the two most essential elements of a crime (mens rea), police did not wish to follow this complaint up any further. Though the majority of the community believes that children are innocent from the prospect of a crime, there are a minority with the belief that they should not be let off the hook from the presumption of guilt and mens rea just because of their age, as more and more juvenile offenders are getting of quite easily. On June 11th, 1996 the BBC published a newspaper articles confronting this issue, called “Should Juveniles be Tried as Adults?” This article explored the reasons for and against this issue, as well as the measures in place to dealing with juvenile crime.
Another valid point to make is about the death penalty. In many countries, such as the United States and some European nations, capital punishment (death penalty) still exists. However, the notion of a “life for a life” has died down amongst Australia. Australians no longer believe in capital punishment, as a result it was abolished. It was last used in 1967, when in the case of Victoria vs. Ryan (1967), where Ronald Ryan was hanged and executed. Prior to this sentence, Queensland and New South Wales had already abolished the death penalty as a form of punishment. The last case which saw a punishment of the death penalty was the case NSW vs. Hodge (1984). Hodge was sentenced to life imprisonment, and granted parole in 1995. This was the very last case which resulted in life imprisonment/death penalty. It was removed as a punishment for murder in all states in Australia. The Federal Government amended the legislation of the Capital Punishment Act consenting to this. Much like the previous issue of juvenile crime, there are still minorities who have an extremely strong nerve and catalyst of serious offenses and believe that if one takes a life/causes an ominous act towards society or towards a person; they don’t deserve to keep their own. In other words, a “life for a life” famous quote. After the abolition of the death penalty in all states and territories in Australia, the BBC released a newspaper article called “Abolition of death penalty leaves controversy and discussion amongst Australians” giving evidence of differing perspectives and arguments at the time, as the death penalty had only just been abolished. Today, the majority don’t believe in death as retribution for the most serious crimes committed against the person.
Community service, and other penalties such as probation, bond, and a Suspended sentence, rehabilitation programs and reducing the charge of murder to manslaughter are all, in theory are the least serious penalties imposed by a Court. Instead, they all grant a form of leniency and give the offender a chance to re-cooperate. This reflects the criminal justice’s view of learning from sins, and hopefully not re-offending. These are in place because the legal system acknowledges that all before the law deserve a second chance to right the wrong, if the crimes committed have special circumstances such as provocation, self-defense, an act of protecting a loved one, or an careless accident, etc. These notions are represented in the NSW case of the State of NSW vs. Dr. Hayes. Rebecca Hayes (a well respected doctor in her field) had charges against her for second degree murder; however a defense of provocation was brought up by the defense, claiming that the deceased had attempted to viciously harm her and her family on more than one occasion, reducing the charge to manslaughter.
Lastly, imprisonment is the harshest penalty a court can impose on anyone who comes before the law. Imprisonment supports the views of the legal system and society of incapacitation; removing a person characterized as a “criminal” from society. The Crimes Act 1999 provides for maximum sentencing for certain penalties. A significant where a judge can use imprisonment to remove a violent offender from society are R vs. Kramer (2006), a child molester who victimized several children aged from 9 – 15. There were several reports and complaints made from the victim’s families to police; the same person. The BBC World News released a newspaper article called “Danger to children put away” defaming the violent offender, reflecting how highly the media and society believe imprisonment in being the most effective penalty for dealing with criminals.
In conclusion, the different penalties reflect different purposes of punishment and values/beliefs of the legal system, the community and media. This is shown through newspaper articles written, discretion of the courts/judges when imposing sentences, and reactive nature of people when faced with dealing with a crime; for example, they believe that when reporting a crime, as they know of what their information could do to the offender and what punishment they could face.