Court Sentencing And Justice - Research Paper Example

Court Sentencing & Justice Name Institution Introduction In the modern context, criminal courts as well as sentencing continue to respond to the diverse changes in the political and social environments in the modern society. Furthermore, chances continue to generate pressures and challenges for the legal systems. It is also essential to note that changes have diverse implications on the way the courts make valuable sentences concerning different criminal cases. Some of the essential concepts in the determination of the sentences for the criminal cases in the context of Australia include sex, gender, mental health conditions, social issues, and political environments. The main objective of this research is to examine how judges rationalize or reason in accordance with their sentencing decisions concerning diverse criminal cases. The research focuses on assessing or evaluating the critical factors such as gender differences and political environments as well as social contexts in the sentencing processes for diverse cases. Literature Review Diverse research articles and research studies continue to illustrate chances in the rationalisation of sentences by judges in the modern society with reference to the case of Australia. One of the critical studies demonstrating the influence of changes in the political and social environments with reference to this research study is King, Bamford, & Sarre (2009). According to this research article, custodial remand processes occur in a complex social and justice context in accordance with the influence of the Australian jurisdictions by specific legislation. In addition, the article notes the presence of the legislation with similar and related provisions across Australia. However, the implementation of the legislation involves an array of decision-makers as well as range of defendants and their relevant supporters. This research article also notes that decision-making in the judicial context must relate to the precedent and settled practice in the development of context in the modern society. King, Bamford, & Sarre (2009) focus on exploring the contextual themes guiding the making of decisions in the modern contexts with reference to sentencing and pursuit of justice. Another critical research study in this research scope is Carl Williams (2007). The main purpose of this research was to focus on the evaluation of the contemporary comment with reference to secret deals as well as bargained justice concerning the underworld of Victoria’s plea bargaining system. Similarly, the research article notes that the infamous Victorian underworld figure Carl Williams shocked the public by pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy in relation to committing murder as well as three counts of murder. The main purpose of the contemporary comment is to examine the re-emergence of such concerns in relation to the wake of Williams’ plea bargain. The contemporary comment focuses on illustration of the plea-bargaining involving the informal discussions between defence counsel as well as prosecutors concerning the case facts, the likely plea of defendant, and the possibility of negotiating charges. In the current instance, plea bargaining requires defendants to plead guilty in exchange for selected leniencies from prosecutors and courts (Easton & Piper, 2012). In addition, plea bargaining has become a common technique or mechanism in the international disposition of cases because of the benefits it offers to the justice inclusive of the reduction in the court costs, delays, sparing victims, and relevant witnesses in relation to the process of testifying. Additionally, Lievore (2005) weighs into the issues in relation to evaluation of the influences in the modern court decisions and justice. In this research study, the author focuses on examination of the current court decisions and sentences in the pursuit of justice in the modern society. Lievore (2005) concentrates on the prosecutorial decisions in adult sexual assault cases. Besides, the article notes that the prosecution agencies often face criticism for their performance in prosecuting or handling sexual assault. Furthermore, the essence of lack of lack of external transparency translates to the little knowledge about the specific criteria applicable in the decisions to proceed with or discontinue prosecutions. The article notes that understanding of the factors with impact on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion constituting an important step towards the improvement of criminal justice outcomes with reference to handling of the sexual assault cases. The main purpose of the article is to evaluate and analyse the prosecutorial decisions to proceed with as well as discontinue prosecution in a sample of adult sexual assault case with the intention of securing a conviction. According to the findings of the study, the case decisions relate to evidentiary considerations with the tendency and potentiality of securing a conviction. Furthermore, the decisions generate diverse questions in the context of handling of cases involving prior relationships (Edney & Bagaric, 2007). Another critical aspect of the literature review focuses on the Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer (1998) article focusing on the evaluating of the relationship between race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing with reference to punishment cost of being young, black, and male. According to this article, the prior theory as well as research on sentencing oversimplifies the role of race, gender, and age in the context of making judicial decisions. The main purpose of the article is to offer substantial presentation of the focal concerns theory in relation to judicial decision-making with the intention of framing hypotheses in relation to social and political implications and environments on the court sentences with reference to the case of Australia. In order to achieve this goal, the article focuses on the attributional stereotypes as vital mediating mechanisms. Bridges & Steen (1998) focuses on evaluation of the racial disparities in official assessments of the juvenile offenders. Similarly, Andrew von Hirsch (2007) has been essential in weighing into the issue of the research scope through evaluation and assessment of the impact of the ‘desert’ model critical for sentencing. This is through examination of the influence, prospects, and alternatives with the aim of understanding contemporary court sentences in accordance with the case of Australia (Zalkind & Simon, 2004). The research has been essential in identification of the extent of the study with reference to influence of social and political environments on the decisions by courts in diverse sentencing issues. Method The main objective of this research is to examine how judges rationalize or reason in relation to their sentencing decision. This is through evaluation of critical factors such as gender differences in the sentencing processes in diverse cases. In order to address these research questions, the report focused on evaluation of key ten-court sentencing in relation to diverse cases such as sexual assault, robbery, and murder encounters. In addition, the research focused on evaluation of past research studies and current issues in relation to social and political implications in the court sentencing in the pursuit of justice. One of the COURTS SENTENCING AND JUSTICE 5 critical sites for the evaluation and addressing of these research questions would be the South Australia District Courts. This is through examination of the current cases and sentences with the aim of understanding and incorporating the trend in making decisions of diverse court cases. The research exploited sentencing remarks as the data source for addressing the research questions with the aim of achieving the goals and objectives of the essay. Moreover, random sampling was vital in the selection of the sentencing remarks from the research sites. This was essential in adopting and incorporating vital concepts in relation to the modern factors in sentencing while pursuing justice. In the generation of substantial findings, this research focused on the utilisation of the following five critical cases: i. In R vs. Lahni Kym Bonfield’s case concerning aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence and assault, the court focused on evaluation of the social and psychological backgrounds prior to presentation of the community service punishment for the criminal acts. ii. In R vs. TY Brett Campion & Damian Patrick Flanagan concerning aggravated assault causing harm and property damage, the court also focused on utilization of the legal and social analysis of the situation prior to the dishing of the sentence remarks. iii. In R vs. Joel Jabinal concerning persistent sexual exploitation of a child, the court remarks had the opportunity to adhere to the changes in the political and social environments prior to making critical sentence on the most appropriate punishment for the crime. iv. In R vs. Anthony Ronald Lunn’s case, the potential maximum penalties for the offences were three years imprisonment, two years imprisonment, and ten years imprisonment respectively. However, the courts focused on exploitation of the current political and social environments in making valuable decisions. v. In R vs. Stephen David Andrews present in Adelaide’s case concerning accessing child exploitation material, the changes to the environment came into play thus an effective opportunity for the provision of critical decisions. Results In this section of the study, the focus is on examination of the existing factors that were essential in the determination of the five cases as identified in the methodology section. This is essential towards understanding the impact of social and political environments in relation to making court decisions and execution of justices for the achievement of the goals and objectives of the legal systems: i. R vs. Lahni Kym Bonfield’s Case Analysis ii. R vs. Joel Jabinal Case Analysis iii. R vs. Anthony Ronald Lunn’s Case Analysis iv. R vs. Stephen David Andrews present in Adelaide’s Case Analysis v. R vs. TY Brett Campion & Damian Patrick Flanagan Case Analysis Critical analysis of the above case was essential in the generation of key factors affecting the determination of cases and sentences in diverse courts with reference to the case of Australia. These factors are mainly essential in the social and political spheres thus affecting the ability of the judges to deliver quality and reasonable sentences in accordance with the stipulated rules and regulations as well as the extent of the case. One of the essential elements of discussion in the sentencing approach is the aspect of aggravating factors. These are factors, which increase the offender’s criminal culpability thus are likely to result in the offender receiving a more severe punishment. Some of the critical issues in relation to these factors include the potentiality of committing crime or sexual assault in company and the presence of gratuitous violence in the course of committing the crime. The courts also focus on the determination of the age of the victim in the case of the sexual assault. In the context of children, the sentence seems to be more years in comparison to the sex assault against adults within the community. In other contexts, the courts determine whether the sex offender was entitled to offer substantial care for the victim. These factors are valuable in enabling judges to make informed and appropriate sentences and judgements in relation to the sexual and violence cases in the floor of the legal entities. In addition, the analysis of the sentences in the methodology section revealed the presence of the mitigating factors in relation to determination of the case at diverse courts with reference to district and supreme courts in the context of Australia. Mitigating factors are issues, which reduce the offender’s criminal culpability thus contributing to the tendency of offering less severe punishment to the offender in relation to violence, sexual assault, and other relevant criminal behaviours. Some of the issues in this context include whether the offender has pleaded guilty or whether the defendant’s actions were in some way provoked by the victim. These factors are also essential in the determination of the court sentences appropriate for the achievement of the goals and objectives of sentencing and punishment by the legal system in diverse contexts across the globe. In the case of Australia, the legal systems focus on the achievement of three critical goals with reference to integration of punishment and sentencing. In the first essence, the legal system focuses on the achievement of deterrence. It is essential to note that the sentencing and punishment from the legal system focuses on discouraging people from offending in the future under the influence of two facets of deterrence. The first aspect of deterrence is the specific deterrence, which aims to deter individual offenders from reoffending. Some of the essential aspects of this type of deterrence include short custodial sentence with the intention of offering a ‘taste’ of the prison system to the offender as well as integration of community service techniques to deter re-offending. Another aspect of reoffending is the general deterrence aiming to send a message to the community that criminal behaviour is unacceptable thus will generate substantial punishment. The main objective of this deterrence is to make example out of particular offender thus making the community to take a note as well as complying with the law and regulation with the intention of reducing criminal activities within the society. Another essential goal of sentencing and punishment in accordance with the findings of this research is the aspect of retribution. Retribution focuses on encompassing the notion that the punishment should fit the crime. The judge or the magistrate will have the obligation of considering the impact of the crime upon the victim, their family, and the community with respecting to the sentencing in most cases. For instance, integration of the lengthy custodial sentences is an example of the integration of a punishment aimed at retribution. Thirdly, sentencing focuses on the achievement of rehabilitation or reform goal. The main objective of this perspective is to change the behaviour of the offender so that they will not re-offend. In addition, rehabilitation is primarily aimed at tackling the problem of re-offending thus the concept of recidivism. This objective must be the primary focus of any punishment imposed upon a child aged 0-15 years with reference to the case of Australia. Some of the essential techniques towards the achievement of the goals in this concept include community service orders as well as imposition of bonds requiring the offender to participate in some form of counselling. Conclusion In the modern context, criminal courts as well as sentencing continue to respond to the diverse changes in the political and social environments in the modern society. The main objective of this research was to examine how judges rationalize or reason in accordance with their sentencing decisions concerning diverse criminal cases. The research focused on assessing or evaluating the critical factors such as gender differences and political environments as well as social contexts in the sentencing processes for diverse cases. From the findings of the study, it is essential to note that sentencing in Australia focuses on the achievement of three goals. These goals include retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. In addition, the research stated the massive influence of aggravating and mitigating factors in the determination of the sentencing and punishment in the case of Australia. This is through understanding of the concepts of legal system to enhance harmonious living among the society members thus reduction of the criminal activities within Australia. I would recommend the execution of further research on the emerging issues that might affect the delivery of diverse sentences within the legal system. References King S., Bamford D., & Sarre R. (2009). “Discretionary Decision-Making in Dynamic Context: the Influences on Remand Decision-Makers in Two Australian Jurisdictions.” Current Issues in Criminal Justice, Vol. 21 (1), 26-40. https://bblearn.griffith.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-855517-dt-content-rid- 1758000_1/courses/2016CCJ_3141/King_Bamford_Sarre2009.pdf Carl Williams, (2007). “Contemporary Comment.” https://bblearn.griffith.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-855519-dt-content-rid- 1758801_1/courses/2016CCJ_3141/Flynn2007.pdf Lievore, D., (2005). “Prosecutorial Decisions in Adult Sexual Assault Cases.” https://bblearn.griffith.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-855522-dt-content-rid- 1758804_1/courses/2016CCJ_3141/Lievore2005.pdf Steffensmeier D, Ulmer J., & Kramer J, (1998). “The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: the punishment of cost of being young, black, and male.” https://bblearn.griffith.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-864652-dt-content-rid- 1807736_1/courses/2016CCJ_3141/Steffensmeier_etal1998.pdf Bridges G., & Steen S., (1998). “Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms.” Vol. 63, No. 4 (Aug., 1998), pp. 554-570. https://bblearn.griffith.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-864653-dt- content-rid-1807737_1/courses/2016CCJ_3141/Bridges_Steen1998.pdf Andrew von Hirsch, (2007). “The ‘desert’ model for sentencing: its influence, prospects, and alternatives.” https://bblearn.griffith.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-864651-dt-content-rid- 1807735_1/courses/2016CCJ_3141/vonHirsch2007.pdf Edney, R., & Bagaric, M. (2007). Australian sentencing: Principles and practice. Port Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge University Press. Tonry, M. H., & Frase, R. S. (2001). Sentencing and sanctions in western countries. Oxford [England: Oxford University Press. Easton, S. M., & Piper, C. (2012). Sentencing and punishment: The quest for justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Graycar, A., & Grabosky, P. N. (2002). The Cambridge handbook of Australian criminology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zalkind, P., & Simon, R. J. (2004). Global perspectives on social issues: Juvenile justice systems. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books. District Court: Sentencing Remarks. http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/SentencingRemarks/Pages/District-Court.aspx Read More