crime essay points Flashcards
situational crime prevention
opening statement
development, capacity. justice, protection
development of situational crime prevention → capacity for law reform to achieve justice for victims + community → further protection
situational crime prevention
opening evidence/legislation
Lover… + McN…
R v Loverdige (2014) and R v McNeil (2015) → indicated increase in alcohol-fueled violence → law reform enhanced the ability for situational crime prevention
situational crime prevention
effective point
Liquor Amendment Act 2014 (NSW)
Liquor Amendment Act 2014 (NSW) introduced the 1:30 am lockout laws
→ to achieve justice for the community by providing further protection.
situational crime prevention
effective evidence
April 2015, BOSCAR
In April 2015, BOSCAR: rate of alcohol-fueled violence was down 32% in Kings Cross, and 26% in the Sydney CBD.
situational crime prevention
effective point explanation
Liquor Amendment Act 2014 (NSW)
effectiveness of Liquor Amendment Act 2014 (NSW) → ensuring that justice is achieved for the community by providing further protection.
the inability of the legal system to persist with the lockout laws despite the clear safety it provides for the community significantly limits the effectiveness.
situational crime prevention
ineffective point
November 2019, ABC
November 2019, ABC: “Sydney’s lockout laws to be scrapped everywhere except Kings Cross”, disclosed the legal system’s intention to withdraw enforcement of the Act.
situational crime prevention
ineffective evidence
Alcohol and Drug foundation stated…
The Alcohol and Drug foundation stated that the removal of the lockout laws “could increase the risk of alcohol-related assaults and injuries’
situational crime prevention
ineffective point explanation
law reform in achieveing justice
limited effectiveness of law reform in achieveing justice → removal of laws fails to acknowledge community needs
emphasising need for continual situational crime prevention → community protection → removal of laws reduced effectiveness of law reform
situational crime prevention
link
law reform has assisted → ensuring situational crime prevention → limit the prevalence of crime and increase protection
strip searches
opening statement
criminal investigation process
Criminal Investigation process relies heavily on the police to detect and solve crimes
→ inadequate enforcement of search powers reflects an inability to achieve justice
→ public safety is undermined.
strip searches
opening evidence/legislation
(Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA) → police powers →law enforcement is given during search and seizure
strip searches
ineffective point
Section 31 of LEPRA → reasonable, seriousness, urgency
under Section 31 of LEPRA
a police officer is granted powers to conduct a strip search if they suspect it is necessary
“on reasonable grounds” or if “the seriousness and urgency of the circumstances” lead them to do so.
strip searches
ineffective evidence
report released by the Force’s Lessons Learned Unit, herald article
internal report released by the Force’s Lessons Learned Unit suggested that “powers are being applied inconsistently”,
due to police direction when determining “reasonable grounds”.
Herald article → almost 300 minors, including a 10-year old, 2016, 2018
strip searches
ineffective point explanation
herald article + unit report
ineffectiveness of Section 31 of LEPRA in protecting minor suspects from applications of police power
vague legislation → justice is not achieved for the community → police fail to adequately enforce police powers.
strip searches
effective point
Guardian in August 2019
Guardian in August 2019: titled “NSW police are told to film strip searches”
capacity for the criminal investigation process to address injustice and effectively protect.
strip searches
INeffective evidence
filming of the strip searches, Samantha Lee
filming of the strip searches have failed to undermine the ineffectiveness of needing only “reasonable grounds” to be established.
Redfern Legal Centre head of Police accountability, Samantha Lee: strip searches should “only be conducted in the most exceptional circumstances”,
strip searches
effective point explanation
film strip searches
the requirement for police to film strip searches → prevent the misuse of powers granted under Section 31 of LEPRA
→ better protect the rights of suspects and ensure the Criminal Investigation process remains just.
strip searches
link
the ineffectiveness of LEPRA does not enhance the Criminal Investigation process as it fails to ensure fair, equitable and just enforcement.
bail and remand
opening statement
criminal investigation process + protection of society
criminal investigation process has achieved justice for victims to a limited extent
successfully prioritises the protection of society and victims.
bail and remand
opening evidence/legislation
bail laws NSW (2014)
attempted to preserve the presumption of innocence
ensure just treatment of the accused
ensuring society and the community are adequately protected.
bail and remand
ineffective point
show cause
Section 16 A(1) an amendment requires an accused person over the age of 18 to “show cause” as to why detention is not justified, making it considerably harder to attain bail.
bail and remand
ineffective evidence
BOCSAR 2015
statistics released by BOCSAR in 2015 showed the number of defendants refused bail increased from 80 to 88 per cent,
bail and remand
ineffective point explanation
cementing effectiveness of the “show cause” amendment in ensuring the rights of victims and the wider society concerning protection are satisfied.
the strict nature of Section 16A(1) has disregarded a suspect’s right to bail, suggesting that the Bail Laws only fulfil the rights of society and victims and fail to balance all three
bail and remand
ineffective point
SMH June 2019
article published by the Sydney Morning Herald in June 2019 titled “Tough bail laws come at a cost to the innocent”,
exposing the increased chance of remanding innocent people for long periods of time who are awaiting trial.
bail and remand
ineffective evidence
200 people + BOCSAR Don Weatherburn
200 innocent people of all ages were incarcerated after failing to satisfy the “show cause” amendment.
Director of BOSCAR Dr Don Weatherburn stated that “The Bail Act has contributed to the growth in the remand population”
bail and remand
ineffective point explanation
inability of the bail laws to successfully balance the rights of suspects, victims and society → innocent are denied right to bail
difficulty an accused may have in attaining bail and demonstrating the inability of criminal investigation processes in ensuring the rights of suspects are considered.
bail and remand
link
provocation
opening statement
Through the partial defence of provocation, the criminal trial process proves to be highly effective
achieving justice for victims and society as it acknowledges the right to a fair punishment.
provocation
effective point
section 23 of crimes act
Under Section 23 of crimes act the defence of provocation is limited to cases where there is “extreme provocation”, and it further excludes the defence if violence was enticed or a non-violent sexual advance was made.
provocation
effective evidence
ABC 2014
ABC in 2014 titled “NSW legislation will limit a defence of provocation for murder charges”
changes made by the legal system and disclosed the effectiveness of the reform.
provocation
effective point explanation
section 23 + provocation act 2014
section 23 → ability for the criminal trial process to achieve justice for victims and society
lack of enforcement of the provocation defence,
the introduction of the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Act 2014 highlights the effective nature of the criminal trial process.
provocation
ineffective point
R v Singh
the verdict of manslaughter in the 2007 case R v Singh provided the impetus to amend the Crimes act 1900
exposed the ineffective nature of the provocation defence as Mr Singh was not adequately punished for the death of his wife.
provocation
ineffective evidence
betty green
Betty Green from the Domestic Violence Coalition who stated the use of the defence provocation proved
“there is something very seriously wrong with the system”.
provocation
ineffective point explanation
improper enforcement of the provocation defence → lack of justice for victims and exposed the legal system’s inability to effectively reduce sentencing.
the ineffective use of the provocation defence within the criminal trial process failed in achieving justice for victims
→ did not ensure perpetrators were receiving adequate punishment.
legal system enforced The Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Act in 2014 → appropriately enforce the defence and ensure justice is achieved for victims and society.
bail and remand
ineffective evidence
statistics released by BOCSAR in 2015 showed the number of defendants refused bail increased from 80 to 88 per cent, cementing the ineffectiveness of the “show cause” amendment
bail and remand
link
age of criminal responsibility
opening statment
The controversy surrounding the age of criminal responsibility
→ need for young offenders to be treated differently within the Australian Legal system
→ threatens the possibility of rehabilitation
age of criminal responsibility
opening evidence
Section 5 of The Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Section 5 of The Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), it states that “no child who is under the age of 10 years can be guilty of an offence of crime”
age of criminal responsibility
neutral point 1
ABC January 2021:
ABC January 2021: titled “Australia urged by 31 countries at UN meeting to raise the age of criminal responsibility”
praises the need for young offenders to be treated differently as they are inadequately protected within the legislation.
age of criminal responsibility
neutral point 1 evidence
Executive Director of Australian Services, Matt Gardiner, who stated “raising the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 is the minimum we must do to adequately protect children”
age of criminal responsibility
neutral point 1 explanation
Australia’s age of criminality would not rise above 10. This emphasises the high extent to which young offenders must be treated differently within the legal system as the lack of doli incapax under Section 5 renders them vulnerable to imprisonment and impacts the chance for rehabilitation.
age of criminal responsibility
neutral point 2 point
MH article published in May 2021
The lack of protection provided under Section 5 of the Act is reinforced through the SMH article published in May 2021, “Detention is permanently damaging children”, which disclosed the efforts of the #raisetheage campaign in protecting indigenous Australians who are disproportionately impacted.
age of criminal responsibility
neutral point 2 evidence
Royal Australian College of physicians’ Dr Mick Creati who stated that “children need support, care, and protection - not detention”
age of criminal responsibility
neutral point 2 explanation
from 2018, more than 600 children aged 10 to 13 were in detention, with more than 80% being Indigenous. Furthermore, 94% of children imprisoned receive another prison sentence before they reach adulthood revealing the lingering effects of imprisonment and how treatment of young offenders are not upholding the need to ensure rehabilitation is prioritised.
age of criminal responsibility
link
due to the lack of protection under section 5, young offenders must be treated differently under the criminal justice system in order to avoid unfair punishment and ensure rehabilitation is attained.
provocation
link
criminal trial process → highly effective in ensuring justice is achieved for victims and society
→ addresses the right to fair punishment through the reform of the provocation defence.
