Effectiveness of the criminal justice system Essay

tax the force-outiveness of the vile judge arrangement when dealing with infantile wrongdoersThe unlawful justice system approaches immature offenders through curious policies to savoir-faire the challenges of dealing with juvenile pique. They press special c be when dealing with juveniles in order to stop them from repeat pique and stop whatever potential bountiful behaviour which could result in future. Juveniles be defend the highest tendency to restore and most arrogate legality-abiding lifestyles as they mature. There ar several factors influencing juvenile umbr get along with including psychological and social pressures unique to juveniles, which whitethorn tame to an increase in juveniles risks of contact with the reprehensible justice system.Firstly, hatred committed by persons between the ages of 15 to 19 argon more than than belike to be assisted by practice of law more often than any otherwise societal group, making criminal offence judge i n this age bracket significantly higher. This is due to the fact that offence judge usually peak during adolescence and entrust decline in quality with maturity which happens during early adulthood. The processing of these abhorrences helps to infix the seed of legal seeledge in the mind of a chela in hopes of shaping their future actions. In NSW the age of criminal responsibility is defined by statute as 10 age of age (Childrens ( vile Proceedings) deport 1987 NSW).This inwardness that a pincer below the age of 10 eld cannot be prosecuted for a crime. The basis of this is the recognition of the immaturity and photograph of squirtren and, hence, their inability to form the requisite criminal intent known as mens rea which nurtures a pip-squeak from being tried at the level of the adult while they ar not developed enough to know the difference between right and wrong. Additionally, the communal law presumption of doli incapax refers to the presumption that a child is incapable of committing a crime between 10 and 14 historic period of age which protects a child who was unmindful(predicate) that the act was wrong.Police be authorize to require that a unripe person provide them with name, address and proof of identity. As with adults, police have no commonplace power to detain a child for the purpose of questioning. A child or puppyish personcannot be taken to the police station unless they atomic number 18 beneath arrest. If arrested, the childs p arnts or shielder essential be contacted. A child cannot be questi matchlessd by police for more than both hours at any one time and is entitled to have their parent, guardian or solicitor range during questioning. If the child is younger than 16 years, parental authority must be obtained or some other supporting adult to be present during questioning. There are some exceptions to this in singing to, for simulation, ride vehicles. If a young person is the owner of a motor vehicle, they are required by law to tell police the name and address of the number one wood of the vehicle if it is alleged that the driver committed a driving offence.The Childrens Court only hears proceedings for offenders under 18 years or those who are still under 21 years and committed or were charged with the crime while under the age of 18. For this reason, it is a closed discriminative system and proceedings conception to be less formal so not to intimidate the child and protect them from harsh labeling and indirect defamation by the wider community which could potentially presume their future. The call of children and young people appearing in the Childrens Court are not published it is an offence for media outlets to do so. downstairs very special circumstance the dally may grant permission for name calling to be published.The cases are usually presided oer by a Magistrate and thither is no jury. The primary purpose of sentencing and the entire process is to nullify the s ituation and come up with a plan of action to rehabilitate the offender more than punish them, for this reason, it is extremely effective.The primary withdraw of a court when imposing a penalty on a child or young person is to rehabilitate them and ingest them an prospect to rebuild their lives and hopefully not reoffend. Magistrates forget often request that Juvenile evaluator prepare a background pass over on the child or young person to assist them in the sentencing process. If a guilty plea is entered or the young person is found guilty of a crime, the following penalties may be oblige A caution may be issuedThe offender may be referred to a Youth Justice ConferenceDepending on the offenders ability to make up they may be fined to a maximum of$ one hundred0 Community Service may be ordered up to 100 hours for offenders under 16 years and up to 250 hours for those older than 16 The may be placed on a skillful behaviour bondDiscuss factors that affect sentencing decisio ns, including the purposes of punishment and the role of the victimstatutory and juridic guidelines inform the influence of judicable sagaciousness in the area of sentencing. They aim to provide greater uniformity in sentencing matters and enhance the integrity of the process. Judicial guidelines are set by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. They are not binding only if their aim is to structure discretion. For example, for the offence of culpable driving the court has indicated that in the mean(prenominal) course a tutelar declare should be imposed unless exceptional dowry exist. In terms of statutory guidelines a number of acts inform the exercise of judicial discretion. For example, the Crimes Act 1900 NSW prescribes the maximum sentence that may be imposed for various offences. The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW also prescribes general guidelines in relation to sentencing. For example it identifies what might constitute a mitigating or aggravating circumstance. However, it is left to the exercise of judicial discretion as to how untold weight should be given to much(prenominal) circumstances.The sentence that a Court imposes upon an charge is informed by differing punishment verifiables. The objective of deterrence is to discourage people from offending in the future. There are two types of deterrence. Specific deterrence aims to deter an person offender from re-offending, e.g. a short custodial sentence could be said to have a specific check mark effect by giving the offender a taste of the prison system in the hope that this will discourage save criminal activity. General deterrence aims to burden a message to the community that criminal behaviour is unacceptable and will be punished for example the imposition of a custodial sentence for a grouchy crime, whether of short or long duration, could be argued to have a general deterrent effect.This objective is that by making an example of a particular offender, the community will ta ke note and be more willing tocomply with the law. The aim of renewal is to change the behaviour of the offender so that they will not re-offend. Accordingly, rehabilitation is in general aimed at tackling the problem of recidivism, i.e. repeat offenders. It should be noted that in accordance with the feed of the Young Offenders Act 1997 NSW, rehabilitation must be the primary focus of any punishment imposed upon a child vulcanised 0 15 years, or a young person aged 16 18 years.Aggravating factors are factors which increase the offenders criminal culpability and therefore are possible to result in the offender receiving a more strict punishment e.g. was the crime committed in company? was there gratuitous violence? was the victim a child? was that child under the attending of the offender? Mitigating factors are factors which reduce the offenders criminal culpability and are then likely to result in the offender receiving a less severe punishment, e.g. whether the offender h as pleaded guilty or whether the suspects actions were in some look provoked by the victim. Since 1996 in NSW, victims are permitted to give a victims impact bidding to the Court. This legislative change has arguably been a positive development as the arguing gives victims a voice in the judicial process. It is a matter of judicial discretion as to what weight, if any, the judge will give the victims impact statement.