Thursday, 2 June 2011

THE 2011 NSW STATE ELECTION


The NSW Liberal Party won the 2011 NSW state election ousting the former Labor Government. It can be seen throughout and after the election that differing media sources have been used to persuade and influence the general public about law and order issues.

Over the course of the campaign both Liberal and Labor parties utilised a diverse range of media forms. Both parties used radio, television, newspaper, billboard, and social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, blogging and YouTube. 




Throughout the campaign the Liberal Government advertised a ‘blitz on crime’.  Key policy decisions include an additional 550 police officers, an aim to target alcohol related violence, strengthening ‘move on’ powers, the addition of new drunk and disorderly offences, the establishment of a new drug court and a metropolitan drug treatment centre, a commitment to reducing the state’s high reoffending rates and a plan to stop school bullying.

After being elected in to Government The NSW Liberal Party introduced a bill to mandatorily sentence offenders accused of murdering a police  officer.
(see previous blog)

The NSW Liberal party also has sought to introduce a system in which graffiti offenders found guilty are sentenced to stay in L place and P plates longer by reducing their demerit points and disqualifying them from driving.   
Posted by at 1 comment:

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

Crime and me


From an early age I was interested in law, not crime per-se but law and the Australian legal system. My interest was further facilitated in high school when I enrolled for legal studies.

After leaving high school, crime became fascinating, (not committing a crime) but it seemed like another world and I was interested to see what drove people to commit crime and also the legal implication of doing so. After enrolling in Criminology I have found it interesting to study crime and all its characteristics.

I am currently finishing an International Relations and Politics major in my degree which has led me to a significant interest in international crime and international law in particular.

The crime shows I sometimes watch are “Banged up abroad” and “America’s hardest prisons”. I love the Underbelly series because it’s Australian and because it is “based” on true events, even though its portrayal is not always realistic and true to actual events.

My closest encounter with the criminal justice system…
Recently I lost my licence, by having too many demerit points on my driving record for a P plate driver. I appealed my punishment handed down by the Roads and Traffic Authority to my
Local Court
.

I subsequentally lost the appeal, but it was an interesting experience, and sitting in a courtroom in front of a magistrate was a huge deterrent for the future. I will now always drive with P plates on the car (after my suspension of course)!
Posted by at 1 comment:

Death of Osama bin Laden PART 2.


Even in his death, Osama bin Laden made the cover of almost every newspaper in the world and the global media became fascinated by the news that he was dead. 
Torin Douglas reports in the BBC’s newspaper review an exposition of the media reaction to the death of Osama Bin Laden and describes the media reaction as extortionate. 
The Guardian newspaper had a two page spread of news, and a web gallery, of US newspaper front pages, reporting the death of Osama Bin Laden (Pictured Below).[1] The Times had 23 pages of coverage, headlined with a quote from President Obama: "Justice is done".
In al-Sharq al-Awsat, a pan-Arab newspaper, Hussein al-Shabakshy stated: 
“The reaction of the Arab public has been varied. Some refuse to believe he was just killed because—according to them—he was "already dead": how else could his prolonged silence be explained? And then of course, various conspiracy theories are now being threaded together which cast doubt on the whole story and on the pictures (despite their being leaked by the Pakistani authorities and not the Americans). But others just don't care because, for them, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are old news—remnants of a more troubled and past age... Bin Laden's death is being treated in the Arab press as if a head of state just passed away; this is worrying because the public's distraction will cost Deraa and Mesrata dearly.”[2]
An Eqyptian newspaper stated:
“God have mercy on Osama bin Laden… He did everything he thought he could to serve the Muslim cause. But in the end, if America and Israel had launched a multi-trillion dollar campaign to demonise Muslims, they couldn’t have done a better job… Al-Qaeda ended up killing more Muslims than anyone else. They inflicted indescribable damage on the Muslim nation, while failing to inflict any real damage on the West…For us to confront the West, we need to be strong. But we will only become strong when we become free, well-educated citizens of democratic nations. If we could achieve that, Israel would not be able to push us around—the West would not be able to occupy our lands. Who knows—maybe they would start giving us the respect we deserve without us having to fire a single shot.”
In the Syrian al-Watan newspaper, the author wrote:
“Al-Qaeda as an organisation hijacked the words Islam and Muslims, and put them into the same pot as terrorism. After the attacks on September 2001, Muslims were branded with the word "terrorism". The Bush administration adopted a philosophy of "if you're not with us, you're against us". Today, with all the "dancing and joy" in front of the White House over the death of bin Laden, the American administration didn’t quite get the message: that the death of the hatred that bin Laden and his organisation represented for so long does not mean the end of "terrorism". That will be determined by actions, not theory, of the American administrations when it comes to the people of the Islamic world including the Palestinian issue.”[3]
















The response to the death of Osama bin Laden was unprecedented. In his death he was almost on the front page of every newspaper in the world. 
Posted by at 1 comment:

Death of Osama bin Laden PART 1.


The death of Osama bin Laden allows for an evaluation of the global media in response to an enormous public interest event. In retrospect, global media agencies acted promptly with releasing information to the public, although, much of this information was not truthful and accounts were often conflicting.
The London Telegraph reported that one of the four helicopters crashed and burned after it was “apparently hit by fire from the ground.”[1] The Wall Street Journal reported, “two American helicopters took part in the operation…one Pakistani helicopter involved in the raid crashed after it was hit by firing from militants.”[2] A Time article stated that the number of helicopters on the mission was four.[3] ABC News reported that “one of the US helicopters, a CH47 Chinook, was damaged but not destroyed in the operation, and US forces elected to destroy it themselves with explosives.”[4]
Reporting surrounding the cooperation of Pakistan in the operation was also conflicting. ABC News reported that Pakistani intelligence agencies were “involved in this operation.”[5] Fox News cited senior Obama administration officials who said the United States shared intelligence on the compound with no other country.[6] President Obama stated in an address, "Our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding."[7] However CBS News reported "they didn't even inform the Pakistani government that this was happening. The Pakistani government found out when things started going boom at this villa."[8]

There is however no doubt that the death of Osama bin Laden deprives Islamic fundamentalist terrorism of a key symbol and global media outlets on a topic of interest.




Posted by at 1 comment:

Monday, 30 May 2011

MANDATORY SENTENCING FOR POLICE KILLERS

''The murder of a police officer is a direct attack on our community and warrants exceptional punishment. It sends a serious message of support to our police, but I hope it is never used.''  Attorney General Greg Smith.

The NSW government has proposed mandatory life sentences for murder crimes, where the victim is a police officer. The NSW law as it stands currently, holds that the standard non-parole period for murder, where the victim is a police officer is 25 years.

Equality before the law
The rule of law stipulates that every person is equal before the law. If higher sentences are imposed to murders with police officer victims over ordinary citizens, this contradicts the fundamental concept of the rule of law in Australia.

Is the murder of a police officer more serious than a murder of an ordinary citizen?

Judicial discretion
The current law allows a judge to exercise discretion when imposing sentencing for offenders based on the objective seriousness of the crime and taking into account the circumstances of the offender and of the crime.Judges can impose a life sentence for murder if the judge deems it a murder in the worst and most serious degree.

The NSW government proposition of mandatory sentencing will remove the discretion of judges to impose lesser sentences, which vary due to the seriousness and circumstances surrounding the crime. Mandatory sentencing revokes the powers of a judge to interpret facts based on individual circumstances, promoting a ‘one size fits all’ approach to sentencing. This ultimately leads to harsh and unfair sentences. Furthermore, without judicial discretion, the chances of finding a sentence “which will address the causes of the offending and reduce the chance of reoffending (will not occur)”.[1]

Crime Prevention
Advocates of mandatory sentencing argue that it prevents crime through deterrence and incapacitating repeat offenders. However, overwhelming evidence from overseas and Australia, shows that the imposition of mandatory sentences does not reduce crime. Tonry concludes that mandatory penalties prevent little or no crime[2]

Mandatory sentencing for some crimes currently exists in other states and territories in Australia. In the Northern Territory, assaults causing harm carry mandatory prison sentences and in Western Australia, “third strike” burglars face a minimum of 12 months imprisonment.  
However, evidence has shown that mandatory sentencing has not aided in the prevention of those criminal activities. “In the Northern Territory property crime increased during the mandatory sentencing regime, and decreased once it was repealed.”[3] And in Western Australia, “the state government claimed that downward trends in car theft and juvenile convictions were due to the deterrent effects of the legislation”[4] however, Broadhurst and Loh [5]claim that the decline in official records of car theft begun prior to the introduction of the legislation.


Thoughts?
Do you think that murder involving a police officer should carry a harsher sentence than ordinary citizens?
Could mandatory sentencing diminish the power of the judiciary? And ultimately the separation of government and the courts?
Do you agree with mandatory sentencing of offenders who are found guilty of a murder of a police officer?



[1] Smart Justice Mandatory Sentencing Fact Sheet available at: http://www.smartjustice.org.au/resources/Smart%20Justice%20Mandatory%20Sentencing.pdf
[2] M. Tonry, Sentencing Matters, Oxford University Press, New York 1996.
[3] Smart Justice Mandatory Sentencing Fact Sheet available at: http://www.smartjustice.org.au/resources/Smart%20Justice%20Mandatory%20Sentencing.pdf
[4] D. Roche, ‘Mandatory Sentencing’, Australian Institute of Criminology: Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, paper 138. 1999. Available at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/C/1/E/%7BC1EFCBE4-7FCE-4B22-8BB9-AFD965E2E536%7Dti138.pdf
[5] R. Broadhurst & N. Loh, ‘The Phantom of Deterrence: The Crime (Serious and Repeat offenders) Sentencing Act’, Australian & NZ Journal of Criminology, Vol 26, pg 251, 1993. 
Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)