Hey everyone. I'm doing some practice for extended response questions for crime. This is a 2014 question. Can I please get some feedback? Thanks.
To what extent does the criminal investigation process balance the rights of victims, suspects and society?
Due to tension that arises between the community and police in regards to the balancing of rights and the criminal investigation process, the legal system has put emphasis on attempting law enforcement to balance the rights of victims, suspects and society to a varying extent. This has been addressed through legislation, with a variety of articles and cases depicting the extent to which this has been achieved.
Through the varied success of criminal cases in regards to balancing the rights of victims and suspects, the criminal investigation process has addressed this to a limited extent. Under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), evidence must be obtained in a lawful manner, whereby there are no unjustified strip searches, unjustified arrests or the forceful entrance of a property. According to an AUSTLII case study “Police killing of David Gundi” from 1991, police unlawfully raided his property after a warrant was obtained on the basis of false information. This demonstrates a lack of justice within the legal system, since the persecution of Gundi was unfair and unjustified, therefore, demonstrating a limited extent of the legal system balancing the rights of victims. Similarly, the Farah Jama (2008) case demonstrates the limited extent to which the criminal investigation process balances the rights of victims. In 2008, a man was wrongfully convicted of a crime for 6 years because of a DNA mix up.This raised doubts about the reliability of DNA samples and contributed to the 2008 reform of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), which made evidence inadmissible if there were any doubts by the jury. Through the lack of enforceability of this act and the lack of justice achieved for the victim due to a wrongful conviction, the extent to which the criminal investigation process balanced the rights of victims was limited.
In a 2022 ABC news article “police plan to map home surveillance cameras spark privacy concerns,” the extent to which the criminal investigation process balances the rights of society is limited. In hopes of making crimes easier to solve, the police department has said that a “CCTV mapping program will reduce the time it takes to solve.” However, technology groups have “raised concerns” regarding misuse of the system, implying that people’s right to safe collection of data under the Privacy Act 1988 may be infringed upon if an unauthorised body accesses the system. This shows that there is a lack of protection of individual rights since people’s right for their information to be kept safe can potentially be infringed. Similarly, an article by ABC News in 2015 titled “NSW Police take DNA from hundreds of ex-offenders to build crime solving database” shows a lack of balance of rights. Under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000, police obtained hundreds of DNA from ex-offenders. Whilst the majority gave the police permission, some refused. Yet, the interests of the police prevailed. Since no follow up investigations were done into this, it demonstrates a lack of responsiveness of the legal system and protection of individual rights. Therefore, through these articles, the extent to which the criminal investigation process balances rights of society is quite limited.
In conclusion, it is apparent that the extent to which the criminal investigation process balances the rights of victims, suspects and society varies. The legal system has put emphasis on attempting law enforcement to balance the rights of victims, suspects and society, which can be seen with a variety of cases, media and legislation of varying success. The Evidence Act 1995 outlines just terms of collection of evidence, which, according to an AUSTLII case study on David Gundi, was not followed effectively. Similarly, the Farah Jama case addresses the importance of having admissible evidence due to the chances of DNA mix up, which was emphasised during a 2008 reform of the Evidence Act. Alternatively, articles by ABC demonstrate that there is a relatively low balance of rights in regards to the criminal investigation process and society. This can be seen with CCTV companies not putting low emphasis on the Privacy Act 1988 and the unlawful collection of evidence of past criminals.
To what extent does the criminal investigation process balance the rights of victims, suspects and society?
Due to tension that arises between the community and police in regards to the balancing of rights and the criminal investigation process, the legal system has put emphasis on attempting law enforcement to balance the rights of victims, suspects and society to a varying extent. This has been addressed through legislation, with a variety of articles and cases depicting the extent to which this has been achieved.
Through the varied success of criminal cases in regards to balancing the rights of victims and suspects, the criminal investigation process has addressed this to a limited extent. Under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), evidence must be obtained in a lawful manner, whereby there are no unjustified strip searches, unjustified arrests or the forceful entrance of a property. According to an AUSTLII case study “Police killing of David Gundi” from 1991, police unlawfully raided his property after a warrant was obtained on the basis of false information. This demonstrates a lack of justice within the legal system, since the persecution of Gundi was unfair and unjustified, therefore, demonstrating a limited extent of the legal system balancing the rights of victims. Similarly, the Farah Jama (2008) case demonstrates the limited extent to which the criminal investigation process balances the rights of victims. In 2008, a man was wrongfully convicted of a crime for 6 years because of a DNA mix up.This raised doubts about the reliability of DNA samples and contributed to the 2008 reform of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), which made evidence inadmissible if there were any doubts by the jury. Through the lack of enforceability of this act and the lack of justice achieved for the victim due to a wrongful conviction, the extent to which the criminal investigation process balanced the rights of victims was limited.
In a 2022 ABC news article “police plan to map home surveillance cameras spark privacy concerns,” the extent to which the criminal investigation process balances the rights of society is limited. In hopes of making crimes easier to solve, the police department has said that a “CCTV mapping program will reduce the time it takes to solve.” However, technology groups have “raised concerns” regarding misuse of the system, implying that people’s right to safe collection of data under the Privacy Act 1988 may be infringed upon if an unauthorised body accesses the system. This shows that there is a lack of protection of individual rights since people’s right for their information to be kept safe can potentially be infringed. Similarly, an article by ABC News in 2015 titled “NSW Police take DNA from hundreds of ex-offenders to build crime solving database” shows a lack of balance of rights. Under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000, police obtained hundreds of DNA from ex-offenders. Whilst the majority gave the police permission, some refused. Yet, the interests of the police prevailed. Since no follow up investigations were done into this, it demonstrates a lack of responsiveness of the legal system and protection of individual rights. Therefore, through these articles, the extent to which the criminal investigation process balances rights of society is quite limited.
In conclusion, it is apparent that the extent to which the criminal investigation process balances the rights of victims, suspects and society varies. The legal system has put emphasis on attempting law enforcement to balance the rights of victims, suspects and society, which can be seen with a variety of cases, media and legislation of varying success. The Evidence Act 1995 outlines just terms of collection of evidence, which, according to an AUSTLII case study on David Gundi, was not followed effectively. Similarly, the Farah Jama case addresses the importance of having admissible evidence due to the chances of DNA mix up, which was emphasised during a 2008 reform of the Evidence Act. Alternatively, articles by ABC demonstrate that there is a relatively low balance of rights in regards to the criminal investigation process and society. This can be seen with CCTV companies not putting low emphasis on the Privacy Act 1988 and the unlawful collection of evidence of past criminals.
