Strengths and/or weaknesses of the Australian Criminal Justice System - Essay Example

?"When all is said and done, the current criminal justice system is about as fair and effective as we can reasonably expect". Comment on this with reference to strengths and/or weaknesses of the Australian Criminal Justice System. The effectiveness of the Australian criminal justice system has been a debatable issue to or not to fulfill the reasonable aspirations of the people from it. It is said against the criminal justice system that public at large is not satisfied how justice is performed by not conducting suitable processing of offenders. There, it is important to find out the inherent weaknesses of the system. The most noticeable has been the rate of reoffending in the community. Criminality is inherent somewhere in human nature just like good virtues reside in some corners of human heart. Criminologists study and analyse criminal behaviour to rein-in such activities. As remarked by Graycar and Grabosky quoting Santayana (1905)) that ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’ to be answered by saying that those want to avoid future will be in a shocking state, stressing on the need to look both ways – past and future. With the changing of times new criminal opportunities have surfaced from the use of new technologies, new type of organizations and new markets. The Australian criminal justice system has also changed although Australian policing is rooted in the British 19th century model. The Australian criminal justice system is based on two models. The one is ‘Due process model’ based on the philosophy of fairness and justice for all stakeholders and the other is Crime control model for punishing the criminals. The current system takes both models to base on its sense of justice. A welfare model needs to be developed for the benefit of the community and people, offenders or victims. Restorative justice is one such type of movement in the history of Australian criminal justice system. Kathleen Daly and Hennessey Hayes have analyzed the philosophy behind the idea of restorative justice. The restorative movement started in the 1990s and it has taken different forms in State and Territory jurisdictions. Restorative justice conferencing is the other name of victim-offender mediation. Empirical evidence confirms that both the victim and the offender show satisfaction over the results and see the process as fair and show affirmation on its results by showing repentance in the form of heart-felt apology and working for the victim or the community. Although the participants don’t comprehend the idea well that the major aim is the ‘restoration’, which happens in the form of encounters where ‘offenders apologize, their apologies are accepted, victims offer forgiveness, and conferences conclude with a feeling of mutual good will’, as quoted by Hayes (2006). Major Strengths of Criminal Justice System Fulfilling Victims Needs The system fulfils the victim’s needs by developing a response to the crime committed. Traditional way of getting a response from the aggrieved victims was not satisfactory. The role of victims in the uncomfortable environment was lifeless. Victims had no idea of the processes of the cases lodged by them and only contributed in the assessment of the offenders’ role. But in the current context victims want a solid backing in role-play (Strang, 2002)). The purpose of restorative justice is to bring the victim back to the limelight of the criminal justice process. Conferencing offers an opportunity to the victim to tell the offender in a congenial environment how the offence has affected the victim and how the offender can compensate the loss caused (Hayes, 2005 p. 78). Fixing Offenders Responsibility Another significant strength of criminal justice system is to inculcate a sense of responsibility in offenders for the crime committed by them. Offenders are asked to explain their crimes, the reasons for committing the crimes and listen to the victims, how they feel at loss at becoming the target of crime. What generally happens at youth courts is that offenders show a passive attitude towards the process as their advocates proceed with the case and mostly the victim is not present. Accountability is a significantly crucial part of the conferencing process. When both the offenders and victims sit face to face, it becomes difficult for offenders to find excuses for their behavior or show false faces; they show remorseful feelings (Hayes, 2005 p. 78). Reparation Restorative justice conferencing in the Australian criminal justice system helps in healing the victim by permitting the offenders, victims and their supporters reach a settlement so that the young offender could make up the loss to the victim. An apology or community work cannot minimize the impact of the crime. Coming face-to-face of the victim and the offender for settlement brings them a step nearer to reparation (Hayes, 2005 p. 79). Restoration Restoration is the main purpose of restorative justice conferences. Conferences may result in compensating the loss occurred to the victim of the crime by the offender as by holding conferences it brings the stakeholders nearer to take part in the criminal justice process. Effects and outcomes of the crime come in the open. Indulging in positive discussion on offenders’ criminal act with the victims and their supporters, they feel the sense of guilt with-in and try to be more responsive to the community they have abused (ibid). Crime Prevention Restorative justice can also lessen the chances of reoffending although such efforts should not be categorized on their ability to reduce recidivism; there are other benefits for the victims restoring the feeling of loss, for the offenders to change for the better. Nonetheless, it is important to know whether restorative justice brings change in the offender and its link to recidivism (ibid). The empirical research on restorative justice is based on its major aims. Researchers conduct structured interviews like surveys to get answers to crucial questions on accountability, restoration, treatment and satisfaction over the results. Defining and Measuring Reoffending There is difference of degrees in the concept of reoffending and recidivism in Australia. Measures of intervention differ from post-intervention arrest to reconviction. It is not as straightforward and easy to define reoffending, how recidivism should be measured. Studies have been made to conduct prevalence analysis wherein a post-intervention criminal act is taken to be recidivist. In other studies incidence analyses are made of all criminal acts post-intervention by the same offender. Prevalence analyses offers data on the number of recidivist offenders in the community but on the other hand, the incidence analyses provides information on the number of crimes committed in the area (Hayes, 2005 p. 83). Restorative justice is a better alternative to tackling offending. It holds good hope to look after the needs of victims of the crime and holds the offenders responsible for their misdeeds and offers a way out to the offenders to control the damage loss. They become a part of the community they have offended. Several regularities in the research findings indicate that victims and offenders share positive experiences in the restorative justice processes but there are many more irregularities in the research findings on recidivism. Supporters of this future model argue that the purpose of the restorative justice processes was not the reduction in crime but it was looking after the needs of victims and fixing responsibility on offenders (Hayes, 2005 p. 95). Supporters also point towards the number of satisfied victims and offenders to prove the consistency of the model but how does such an initiative impact the future offending on which depends the success of the programme of restorative justice. Still researchers, practitioners and policy makers are not sure of its capability in reducing crime. Its impact on recidivism is still unmeasurable. There is more consistency in measuring the processes of restorative justice and procedure justice but there is variation in measuring reoffending more so in field experimentation approach, it is clearly measurable. Such variation adds to the results finding. Variation is also observed in the type of restorative justice programme being checked (Hayes, 2005 p. 95). It is significant to note that the horizon of restorative justice is vast enough to include a number of new justice practices. Such practices may include mediation, circles, peacemaking, reconciliation and conferencing. When we dwell for long on any single type of restorative justice process like conferencing, it is not the same from happening to the other. Victims seek conferencing with different thinking and hopes, offenders have their own experiences but the aims of restoration and communion are hardly achieved always (Hayes, 2005 p. 96). Restorative justice model has many types so differences in outcomes are bound to affect as in reoffending. One should not over-react when research indicates that restorative justice programs positively impact recidivism; it is not always so. Some programs hardly have any impact while some other restorative justice programs negatively affect the process. There is huge variation in restorative justice practices affecting the offenders’ behavior. Future research should take it as a challenge to observe the young offenders taking the restorative process variation and how it affects their behavior. Gaining better understanding of the restorative justice conferencing processes, it is yet to be seen how different conferencing characteristics affect offenders and their conduct. More crucial is the impact of victims on the offenders in understanding the slow down in crime. Yet there are fields to be tested like the role of apology and forgiveness in restorative justice and reoffending research. Complexity of the offender-victim relation is yet to be researched besides the reaction of apologetic lectures on victims, offenders and future offending (Hayes, 2005 p. 96). Weakness of the Australian Criminal Justice System It is argued that the system is deficient in responding to sexual violence. Victims undergo not only physical but mental and negative social outcomes like drug abuse, suicidal tendencies and criminal attitude. This ineffectiveness on the part of law in handling such crimes is the cause of concern as seen from the responses of the criminal justice system for which one single case cannot be sufficient. Although conviction rate is high (83 percent) as seen in Queensland about cases that reach to the higher courts but victims face difficulty in taking forward the proceedings through the criminal justice process (Mazerolle & Legosz, 2004) In sexual abuse cases, police enquiry, committal hearing, and the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision is must to further the case to the higher courts and most of the times it is seen that the victims withdraw the cases just because of the processes involved. As per the data provided by the Crime and Misconduct Commission, out of 6500 cases reported in a year on an average only 1300 are prosecuted while 1100 end in conviction. There is no data on the dropped cases from the system. It is a complaint of the victims that the system lacks transparency (Mazerolle & Legosz, 2004). The role of the Criminal Justice Commission is questionable for not producing a report in the 12 years of its existence on particularly the efficiency of the criminal justice system in Queensland. Lack of cooperation in the criminal justice system has been another important issue as the police, the courts and the corrections work only for their specific goals irrespective of others (Koch, 2001). Leniency in awarding punishments to serious crimes such as sexual abuse and violent criminals requires that government restores faith in the criminal justice system. There is need to change the outlook that culprits won’t be nabbed. Penalties for different crimes should be based on a grid to create a feeling of transparency, uniformity and fairness, lighter sentences for petty crimes and harsh penalties for serious crimes (Bagaric, 2006). Increasing complexity in the delivery of criminal justice is yet another burden on the system. The new legislation puts more focus on the rights of victims, new bail provisions making the job of policemen tougher. To adhere to the hopes of community all elements of the criminal justice system should be weighted equally (James, 2006). Criminal justice policies need to be answerable in controlling crime, saving the community and revere the institutional traditions by fair trial and due process. Policies should be based on evidence from research. Working policies should be supported by politicians. Resources and programs should be within everybody’s reach; in many rural areas there is no facility of community service alternatives. Interference of politicians in criminal justice processes and criminal justice agencies need to be curbed particularly remotely managing the affairs of police (Brown, 2007). References Bagaric, Mirko. (2006, March 6). Set penalty to fit the crime. Courier Mail. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com Brown, David. (2007, January 4). Time to get tougher on crime – again. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com Colin, James. (2006, September 19). Overstretched justice system 'needs review'. The Advertiser. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com Graycar, Adam. & Grabosky, Peter. Trends in Australian crime and criminal justice. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved January 10, 2010, from http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/18452/excerpt/9780521818452_excerpt.pdf Hayes, Hennessey. (2005). Assessing reoffending in restorative justice conferences. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38, (1). Retrieved January 10, 2010, from Ebscohost Database. Hayes, Sharon. & Hayes, Hennessey. (2008) Developing ethical identities in young offenders through restorative justice practice in Australia. QUTLJJ, 8 (2), Retrieved January 10, 2010, from Ebscohost Database Ironside, Robyn. (2008, March 12). Police to share secure details - state opens communication channels between agencies. Courier Mail. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com Koch, Tony. (2001, October 20). Danger in CJC changes. Courier Mail. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com Mazerolle, Paul., Legosz, Margot (2004, June 3). Seeking a just response. Courier Mail. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com Parker-Pope, T. (2008, May 6). Psychiatry handbook linked to drug industry. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Read More