Give it a mark out of 15 and tell me what's good and what's not. Thanks! I would appreciate some constructive criticism as well 
To what extent do penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieve justice for victims, offenders and society? (15 marks)
----
To a considerable extent, are penalties, imposed during the sentencing process, both effective and ineffective in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society. The Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is perceived as the main source for statutory guidelines regarding the sentencing process. It includes the purposes of punishment, types of penalties, limitations on penalties and states that imprisonment is the last resort. This legislation also outlines the various factors which must be considered for sentencing, for example, mitigating and aggravating factors and the personal state of mind of the offender.
Moreover, an evaluation of the effectiveness of penalties imposed during the sentencing process in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society, should not occur, without due consideration of the following criteria:
Firstly, it can be argued that penalties imposed during the sentencing process are both effective and ineffective in protecting the rights of offenders. For example, the case of R. v. Fernando (1992), set a precedence for the future sentencing of Aboriginal offenders. It was decided that Fernando was guilty of malicious wounding his de facto partner. An implication of this case is tremendous, as it established the “Fernando principles”, which take reduced socio-economic circumstances and loss of customary law into account when sentencing indigenous offenders. Thus, testifying to the effectiveness of the law, in protecting the rights of offenders. However, despite state parliament's enactment of the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the issue of sentencing delays remains unresolved. According to Geesche Jacobsen of “The Sydney Morning Herlad”, 24th September 2011, “Court statistics show sentencing delays have doubled in the past decade and the government has announced a review of sentencing practices”, hence showcasing the ineffective nature of the law in protecting the rights of offenders during the sentencing process, but the willingness to reform inadequacies to protect the individual rights of offenders.
Next, it can be argued that penalties imposed during the sentencing process are both effective and ineffective in protecting the rights of the victim. For instance, state parliament's enactment of the Victims Rights Act 1996 (NSW), ensures the objective is to promote and recognise the rights of victims in a crime. Furthermore, the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 (NSW), supports the statutory compensation scheme, which involves the imposition of a levy on criminals as well as a counselling scheme. This legislation also advocates the use of victim impact statements during the sentencing process when determining a penalty. Additionally, the Australian Institute of Criminology (February 1989), states that victim impact statements are pivotal as they prevent judicial officers from neglecting the effects of a serious crime upon a victim, and resulting in a less than adequate penalty for the offender. This highlights the effectiveness of the legal system in protecting the rights of victims and administering justice during the sentencing process. Despite this, the Crimes Case Conferencing Trial Act 2008 (NSW), regulates discounts associated with plea bargaining. This can be understood as ineffective for victims, as offenders may be given a lesser sentencing for pleading guilty prior to the committal. Hence, the sentencing process if both effective and ineffective in protecting the rights of the victim.
Thirdly, the penalties imposed during the sentencing process are effective in achieving justice for society and meeting the needs of the community. For example, in the case of R v. AEM, R v. KEM and R v. MM (2002) (NSWCCA), there was public outrage that these teenagers were handed sentences of only six years for gang rape. The eldest, AEM, was given a non-parole period of four years, whilst his brother KEM and cousin, MM had non-parole periods of three years. The Crown appealed the leniency of the sentences and the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal increased each of the non-parole sentences to 9 years, 10 years and 10 years respectively. An implication of this case was tremendous, as it served as a catalyst for the Crimes Amendment (Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Act 2001 (NSW). This amended the law, so that judges could impose longer sentences. This was seen in the case of R v. Skaf and Skaf (2008) (NSWCCA), where Judge Finnane sentences Bilal Skaf to 55 years imprisonment and Mohammed Skaf to 18 years (upon appeal this was changed to 35 years and 12 years, respectively). According to Judge Michael Finnane, “these were horrific atrocities which were of detriment to society”. Thus, the steps of the legal system in relation to the heinous crime, testifies to the effectiveness of penalties imposed during the sentencing process in achieving justice for society.
In conclusion, the penalties imposed during the sentencing process are both effective and ineffective in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society. In relation to protecting individual rights, penalties take into account the rights of both the offender and victim and attempt to balance out these rights. For protecting society's needs, the penalties protect society from heinous crimes, such as sexual assault in company and ensure that the rights of members of society are upheld and protected.
Thanks for this!
To what extent do penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieve justice for victims, offenders and society? (15 marks)
----
To a considerable extent, are penalties, imposed during the sentencing process, both effective and ineffective in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society. The Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is perceived as the main source for statutory guidelines regarding the sentencing process. It includes the purposes of punishment, types of penalties, limitations on penalties and states that imprisonment is the last resort. This legislation also outlines the various factors which must be considered for sentencing, for example, mitigating and aggravating factors and the personal state of mind of the offender.
Moreover, an evaluation of the effectiveness of penalties imposed during the sentencing process in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society, should not occur, without due consideration of the following criteria:
- Protection of individual rights, that is, are penalties, imposed during the sentencing process effective as they protect the rights of individuals, that of both the offender and the victim?
- Meeting society's needs, that is, are penalties, imposed during the sentencing process effective because they meet the needs of the community?
Firstly, it can be argued that penalties imposed during the sentencing process are both effective and ineffective in protecting the rights of offenders. For example, the case of R. v. Fernando (1992), set a precedence for the future sentencing of Aboriginal offenders. It was decided that Fernando was guilty of malicious wounding his de facto partner. An implication of this case is tremendous, as it established the “Fernando principles”, which take reduced socio-economic circumstances and loss of customary law into account when sentencing indigenous offenders. Thus, testifying to the effectiveness of the law, in protecting the rights of offenders. However, despite state parliament's enactment of the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the issue of sentencing delays remains unresolved. According to Geesche Jacobsen of “The Sydney Morning Herlad”, 24th September 2011, “Court statistics show sentencing delays have doubled in the past decade and the government has announced a review of sentencing practices”, hence showcasing the ineffective nature of the law in protecting the rights of offenders during the sentencing process, but the willingness to reform inadequacies to protect the individual rights of offenders.
Next, it can be argued that penalties imposed during the sentencing process are both effective and ineffective in protecting the rights of the victim. For instance, state parliament's enactment of the Victims Rights Act 1996 (NSW), ensures the objective is to promote and recognise the rights of victims in a crime. Furthermore, the Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 (NSW), supports the statutory compensation scheme, which involves the imposition of a levy on criminals as well as a counselling scheme. This legislation also advocates the use of victim impact statements during the sentencing process when determining a penalty. Additionally, the Australian Institute of Criminology (February 1989), states that victim impact statements are pivotal as they prevent judicial officers from neglecting the effects of a serious crime upon a victim, and resulting in a less than adequate penalty for the offender. This highlights the effectiveness of the legal system in protecting the rights of victims and administering justice during the sentencing process. Despite this, the Crimes Case Conferencing Trial Act 2008 (NSW), regulates discounts associated with plea bargaining. This can be understood as ineffective for victims, as offenders may be given a lesser sentencing for pleading guilty prior to the committal. Hence, the sentencing process if both effective and ineffective in protecting the rights of the victim.
Thirdly, the penalties imposed during the sentencing process are effective in achieving justice for society and meeting the needs of the community. For example, in the case of R v. AEM, R v. KEM and R v. MM (2002) (NSWCCA), there was public outrage that these teenagers were handed sentences of only six years for gang rape. The eldest, AEM, was given a non-parole period of four years, whilst his brother KEM and cousin, MM had non-parole periods of three years. The Crown appealed the leniency of the sentences and the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal increased each of the non-parole sentences to 9 years, 10 years and 10 years respectively. An implication of this case was tremendous, as it served as a catalyst for the Crimes Amendment (Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Act 2001 (NSW). This amended the law, so that judges could impose longer sentences. This was seen in the case of R v. Skaf and Skaf (2008) (NSWCCA), where Judge Finnane sentences Bilal Skaf to 55 years imprisonment and Mohammed Skaf to 18 years (upon appeal this was changed to 35 years and 12 years, respectively). According to Judge Michael Finnane, “these were horrific atrocities which were of detriment to society”. Thus, the steps of the legal system in relation to the heinous crime, testifies to the effectiveness of penalties imposed during the sentencing process in achieving justice for society.
In conclusion, the penalties imposed during the sentencing process are both effective and ineffective in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society. In relation to protecting individual rights, penalties take into account the rights of both the offender and victim and attempt to balance out these rights. For protecting society's needs, the penalties protect society from heinous crimes, such as sexual assault in company and ensure that the rights of members of society are upheld and protected.
Thanks for this!
