you would never get this as an essay question, but things you could discuss;
(Positives - with regards to the discretionary powers of police, based upon the severity of crime and availability of resources - can investigate cases they feel are more indictable - within the boundaries of such laws as the Crimes Act, Police Powers and Responsibilities Act to "search, seize and detain things" but also the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) - however, police discretionary power can be abused (note children being targets, told to "move on", also with their issues of 'reasonable force' and pat downs of shaking hair, saliva samples on "reasonable grounds" - this negative countered somewhat with the issuance of warrants as judicial safeguards for police abusing their discretionary power
Effectiveness of discretion within the trial and sentencing processes - judge can weigh up several aggravating and mitigating factors with which to pass a verdict that is just and utilitarian - also can hear Victim Impact Statements (VIS) to hear the physical and emotional consequences this has had on the victim - however, can also decide on which case can be heard upon appeal (within the boundaries of persuasive and binding precedents) - however, negative of discretion with recent documents revealing that at times inadmissible evidence (both DNA and 'real' evidence charts being a hindrance to providing justice) - sentencing of judges based on discretion as well as post-sentencing considerations - negatives shown by discretionary powers allowed for continued/preventative detention eg. for sex offenders (justice achieved for the convicted accused that has already served their time?)
Does this help?
