With reference to three criminal cases investigate the criminal justice system and answer the following extended response question in 1500 words:
To what extent do penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieve justice for victims, offenders and society?
You must cite at least 3 criminal cases
A criminal case is a case to decide whether a person who has been charged is guilty of a crime or other offence. The majority of criminal cases in NSW first come before the NSW Local Court. Juries are not used in the Local Court. To a considerable extent, are penalties, imposed during the sentencing process, both effective and ineffective in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society as all want different things and see it from different perspectives. The Caroline Byrne case, The Graeme Wylie case and the blah - case are examples of this. Evaluation of the effectiveness of penalties imposed during the sentencing process in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society, should not occur, without due consideration of the protection of individual rights and meeting society's needs.
Caroline Byrne was a model in a relationship with Gordon Wood whom of which was convicted of her murder in 2008, 13 years after her death at the bottom of a cliff at Watson’s Bay in Sydney, June 1995 (LIAC, 2008). Half the jury came to the conclusion that it was a premeditated murder, yet were soon to realise it was just an act of rage in the moment. This case was ineffective in achieving justice for victims, the offender and society due to the time it took to bring a conviction to the case and due to the jury having issues of unanimous verdict, increased jury members and jury misconduct (Legal Studies Preliminary- Third Edition, 2009). Achieving justice in the Caroline Byrne case was to a small extent due to the time delays. It was more than a decade after the death of Caroline Byrne that a conviction was brought to the case. The families of all those involved in the case had to endure years of uncertainty and had to wait to see what might happen and what action might be taken by the police leaving society feeling unsafe as they were unsure of there being a killer roaming free or not. Another issue that arose throughout the Caroline Byrne case making achieving justice to a small extent was unanimous verdict which meant that not all members of the jury agreed to the final ruling of the accused. Although this caused problems, a change in the law was made due to this making achieving justice to a bigger extent as the law was changing in order to keep up with society. To a small extent the penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieved justice in the R V. Wood case for the victim, Caroline Byrne. Caroline Byrne was murdered, which in a wrong doing her life was taken away. Gordon Wood was sentenced to 17 years and four months in jail, with a non-parole period of 13 years penalty imposed during the sentencing process achieving justice for the offender.
R v Justins (2008) NSW Sup. Ct. was the case involving the death of Graeme Wylie, a man suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Caren Jennings, a close friend of Wylie, travelled to Mexico to get a hold of the drug Nembutal, which is illegal in Australia. This drug is what caused Graeme Wylie’s death. The court found that because of his advanced dementia Wylie no longer had the capacity to make a decision to end his own life meaning his long-term partner, Shirley Justins, was found guilty of manslaughter. After six weeks of evidence and four days of nervous waiting while the jury deliberated, Caren Jennings was found guilty of being an accessory to manslaughter and for the importation of the drug, Nembutal. Whilst Justins was sentenced to 22 months of weekend detention, Caren Jennings, aged 75, took her own life using the same drug, Nembutal, as she was suffering from terminal cancer and was afraid of dying in jail (LIAC, 2008). Achieving justice in the Justins case was to a small extent due to voluntary euthanasia. “A peaceful death is everybody’s right” quoted from Shirley Justins at the trial on Thursday, June 19. The one question arising throughout the trial process was “Did Mr Wylie have the mental capacity to make the decision to die on 22 March 2006?” (Nickles, 2008). The offenders changed their decisions and pleaded guilty in the suicide of Graeme Wylie. To a small extent penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieved justice for the offenders as not only did the jury see two self-confessed liars sitting in the dock, but the Crown refused to accept the change of pleas, leaving the original charges of murder and accessory before the fact of murder stand. To a small extent penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieved justice for the victim as Graeme Wylie had been talking about the topic of taking his life before his condition deteriorated became of such importance to Graeme that he discussed his views widely and after his wish had been granted and was finally put to rest, his long term partner and friend were in trouble with the law because of it. To a small extent penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieved justice for society as many people believe that a peaceful death is everybody’s right (Nickles, 2008). Many people supported the 2 offenders throughout the trial giving a great sense of community.
R v Kinloch (2004) NSWSC 998 was the case involving the death of June Booth. On 30 August 2003 June caught a bus from the city and got off at her stop in North Ryde at about 2.30 pm. She took a shortcut along a creek in Greenwood Park. At about 5.20 that night her body was found by a local resident. Gregory Kinloch was scheduled as mentally ill under the Mental Health Act 1990. It is to be noted that this action was taken before the accused was linked with the death of Mrs Booth. In October 2004, he was found not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness. This case illustrates the legal issue of diminished responsibility, the M'Naghten Rules (LIAC, June Booth - R v Kinloch - defence of mental illness, 2004). To a small extent penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieved justice for the victim as her murderer was let off all charges due to a mental illness. For society, to a small extent penalties imposed during the sentencing process made achieving justice hard due to the fact that there was a man suffering from a disease of the mind and chronic paranoid schizophrenia roaming the streets getting off charge of murder and the rights of members of society was not protected. As for the offender , Gregory Kinloch, to a small extent penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieved justice as this man was knew the nature and quality of his act he was unable to reason about its wrongness with a moderate degree of sense and composure and did not fully recall his actions. In his wrong doing, Kinloch was able to walk a free man.
Through the cases of Caroline Byrne, Graeme Wylie and June Booth, it is shown that the penalties imposed during the sentencing process are both effective and ineffective in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society. In relation to protecting individual rights, penalties take into account the rights of both the offender and victim and attempt to balance out these rights. For protecting society's needs, the penalties protect society from crimes and ensure that the rights of members of society are upheld and protected.
To what extent do penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieve justice for victims, offenders and society?
You must cite at least 3 criminal cases
A criminal case is a case to decide whether a person who has been charged is guilty of a crime or other offence. The majority of criminal cases in NSW first come before the NSW Local Court. Juries are not used in the Local Court. To a considerable extent, are penalties, imposed during the sentencing process, both effective and ineffective in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society as all want different things and see it from different perspectives. The Caroline Byrne case, The Graeme Wylie case and the blah - case are examples of this. Evaluation of the effectiveness of penalties imposed during the sentencing process in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society, should not occur, without due consideration of the protection of individual rights and meeting society's needs.
Caroline Byrne was a model in a relationship with Gordon Wood whom of which was convicted of her murder in 2008, 13 years after her death at the bottom of a cliff at Watson’s Bay in Sydney, June 1995 (LIAC, 2008). Half the jury came to the conclusion that it was a premeditated murder, yet were soon to realise it was just an act of rage in the moment. This case was ineffective in achieving justice for victims, the offender and society due to the time it took to bring a conviction to the case and due to the jury having issues of unanimous verdict, increased jury members and jury misconduct (Legal Studies Preliminary- Third Edition, 2009). Achieving justice in the Caroline Byrne case was to a small extent due to the time delays. It was more than a decade after the death of Caroline Byrne that a conviction was brought to the case. The families of all those involved in the case had to endure years of uncertainty and had to wait to see what might happen and what action might be taken by the police leaving society feeling unsafe as they were unsure of there being a killer roaming free or not. Another issue that arose throughout the Caroline Byrne case making achieving justice to a small extent was unanimous verdict which meant that not all members of the jury agreed to the final ruling of the accused. Although this caused problems, a change in the law was made due to this making achieving justice to a bigger extent as the law was changing in order to keep up with society. To a small extent the penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieved justice in the R V. Wood case for the victim, Caroline Byrne. Caroline Byrne was murdered, which in a wrong doing her life was taken away. Gordon Wood was sentenced to 17 years and four months in jail, with a non-parole period of 13 years penalty imposed during the sentencing process achieving justice for the offender.
R v Justins (2008) NSW Sup. Ct. was the case involving the death of Graeme Wylie, a man suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Caren Jennings, a close friend of Wylie, travelled to Mexico to get a hold of the drug Nembutal, which is illegal in Australia. This drug is what caused Graeme Wylie’s death. The court found that because of his advanced dementia Wylie no longer had the capacity to make a decision to end his own life meaning his long-term partner, Shirley Justins, was found guilty of manslaughter. After six weeks of evidence and four days of nervous waiting while the jury deliberated, Caren Jennings was found guilty of being an accessory to manslaughter and for the importation of the drug, Nembutal. Whilst Justins was sentenced to 22 months of weekend detention, Caren Jennings, aged 75, took her own life using the same drug, Nembutal, as she was suffering from terminal cancer and was afraid of dying in jail (LIAC, 2008). Achieving justice in the Justins case was to a small extent due to voluntary euthanasia. “A peaceful death is everybody’s right” quoted from Shirley Justins at the trial on Thursday, June 19. The one question arising throughout the trial process was “Did Mr Wylie have the mental capacity to make the decision to die on 22 March 2006?” (Nickles, 2008). The offenders changed their decisions and pleaded guilty in the suicide of Graeme Wylie. To a small extent penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieved justice for the offenders as not only did the jury see two self-confessed liars sitting in the dock, but the Crown refused to accept the change of pleas, leaving the original charges of murder and accessory before the fact of murder stand. To a small extent penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieved justice for the victim as Graeme Wylie had been talking about the topic of taking his life before his condition deteriorated became of such importance to Graeme that he discussed his views widely and after his wish had been granted and was finally put to rest, his long term partner and friend were in trouble with the law because of it. To a small extent penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieved justice for society as many people believe that a peaceful death is everybody’s right (Nickles, 2008). Many people supported the 2 offenders throughout the trial giving a great sense of community.
R v Kinloch (2004) NSWSC 998 was the case involving the death of June Booth. On 30 August 2003 June caught a bus from the city and got off at her stop in North Ryde at about 2.30 pm. She took a shortcut along a creek in Greenwood Park. At about 5.20 that night her body was found by a local resident. Gregory Kinloch was scheduled as mentally ill under the Mental Health Act 1990. It is to be noted that this action was taken before the accused was linked with the death of Mrs Booth. In October 2004, he was found not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness. This case illustrates the legal issue of diminished responsibility, the M'Naghten Rules (LIAC, June Booth - R v Kinloch - defence of mental illness, 2004). To a small extent penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieved justice for the victim as her murderer was let off all charges due to a mental illness. For society, to a small extent penalties imposed during the sentencing process made achieving justice hard due to the fact that there was a man suffering from a disease of the mind and chronic paranoid schizophrenia roaming the streets getting off charge of murder and the rights of members of society was not protected. As for the offender , Gregory Kinloch, to a small extent penalties imposed during the sentencing process achieved justice as this man was knew the nature and quality of his act he was unable to reason about its wrongness with a moderate degree of sense and composure and did not fully recall his actions. In his wrong doing, Kinloch was able to walk a free man.
Through the cases of Caroline Byrne, Graeme Wylie and June Booth, it is shown that the penalties imposed during the sentencing process are both effective and ineffective in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society. In relation to protecting individual rights, penalties take into account the rights of both the offender and victim and attempt to balance out these rights. For protecting society's needs, the penalties protect society from crimes and ensure that the rights of members of society are upheld and protected.