Essay on Law Reform & Crime

Resource Description

Essay on Law Reform & Crime
Question: Assess/Evaluate the effectiveness of law reform in achieving just outcomes within the criminal justice system(with a discussion on tensions)

Intro: Law Reform has been largely effective at responding to changing community values within the criminal justice system. While amendments to the law have resulted in just outcomes, tensions between the rights of the victim, community and offenders still remain and achieving a just equilibrium is extremely difficult to achieve. Reforms to mandatory sentencing, the Bail Act, Provocation Defence and Right to Silence have displayed the responsiveness of law in meeting the needs and demands of greater society. However, the extent of their effectiveness is increasingly dependant on the ability of these reforms to meet competing tensions. In this way, law reform has been largely effective at obtaining just outcomes in regards to criminal law.

Law reform in regards to mandatory sentencing has been largely effective at providing just outcomes for the community, however, academics argue that such measures are harsh on offenders as they remove judicial discretion. In response to the community outrage following the Kieran Loveridge case, NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell in 2014 introduced the eight- year mandatory sentence for convicted one-punch offenders. Additionally, following the case of Sione Penisini (2002), the NSW government amended the Crimes Act 1900 to introduce mandatory life imprisonment for the murder of a police offcer under the Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Act 2011 (NSW). While law reform has been largely effective at responding to community concerns, mandatory sentencing inhibits the rights of the offender to a large extent. According to a 2016 article by the Conversation, “Mandatory sentencing leads to unjust, unfair outcomes”, mandatory sentences “remove the judge’s discretionary power to take into account case circumstances” and “creates a problematic system” that impedes the “rule of law”. As a result, mandatory sentencing has adverse impacts on the rights of the offenders as it removes the ability for judges to consider mitigating circumstances. Moreover, in a 2011 Australian Institute of Criminology report, Dr. Lorana Bartels, suggests that mandatory sentences could in fact adversely impact conviction rates by deterring offenders from pleading guilty. Thus, despite effectively responding to the fluctuating needs of society, the implementation of mandatory sentencing has been mostly ineffective at protecting the rights of offenders as it was merely a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to community concerns. However, it is largely effective at providing just outcomes for the greater community by establishing harsh deterrents.