Essay Plans For Crime

Resource Description

How effectively does the criminal investigation process balance the rights of victims, offenders and society?

To what extent do legal and non-legal measures in the criminal justice system encourage compliance? How effective are police in reflecting moral and ethical standards?

Intro: The criminal investigation process is somewhat effective in balancing the rights of all groups in society, including victims, offenders and the greater population. Due to the conflicting interests of the parties, the goal of justice, which the investigation process observes, can be lost in translation, leading to a lack of civil liberties and misunderstandings of the roles of law enforcement. Recent law reform regarding strip searches, bail laws and covert searches all contribute to the balance or unbalance of the rights of the individual and how society enforces these rights. Search and Seizure (strip) Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (LEPRA) s31 NSW police minister defends strip-searching children, The Guardian, 2019 Watchdog recommends NSW police apologise to strip-search victim, SMH, 2020 The balance between the rights of the individual and the powers of law enforcement regarding strip searches has not been effectively observed by the criminal investigation process (CIP) in recent years. A key power of police in preventing crime, as set out by the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (LEPRA), is the power to search someone and seize illicit items that could harm greater society. However, as a 2019 Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Inquiry highlighted, many officers are overstepping their powers, namely when it comes to underage persons at large events. This inquiry came after 122 underage girls were searched in 2019 at public events, with over 63% searches turning up no illicit substances. These searches, which involve a complete strip and, in some cases, a ‘squat and cough’ (The Guardian, 2019) are incredibly invasive, a complete overrule of an individual’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy. The Redfern Legal Centre, who called for “a ban on minor strip-searches, unless court order is obtained” (SMH, 2020), highlight that current legal thresholds are inadequate in protecting the rights of the individual when it comes to search and seizures, no matter the benefit to greater society if illicit drugs are found. Bail/Remand Laws Bail Amendment Act 2013/2014/2015 Tough Bail laws come as a cost to the innocent, SMH, 2020 Monis Case 2014 The goal of justice and subsequently the balancing of rights is achieved to a certain extent in regard to bail and remand laws over years of amendments. The original Bail Act 1978 (NSW) became “too difficult to comprehend and navigate”, as former attorney general Greg Smith stated (SMH, 2012), highlighting the lack of justice achieved; not only was the Act too strict, based on charge and not individual circumstance, but it also allowed for NSW prisons to become intensely overcrowded. This led to the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), which aimed to protect the rights of the alleged offender instead. However, this did not balance the rights of society, exemplified in the case of Man Monis (2014), who was released on bail and was thus, allowed to hold the Sydney siege, a ‘bloody stain’ (SMH, 2020) on Australia’s history. A new amendment, coming into legislation in 2014, then tightened the bail laws, pushing for a presumption against bail in many cases. This again, did not balance the rights of all parties in society, with BOSCAR reporting that in 2019 alone, 21 children and 200 adults, who were later found innocent, were denied bail and held on remand for an average of 124 days (SMH, 2019). This clear shift to the presumption in favour of protecting the community over protecting the innocent raises questions of the fairness and equality of the bail system, and the strides yet to be taken.