Evaluation of the ability of the criminal justice system toachieve the principles of justice
Students and teachers should note that sample answers to activities requiring student evaluation, such as this activity, will only be provided on this website for Chapter 1 questions. The intention is to provide students with an initial guide on how to approach these types of questions. It is then up to each student to complete evaluations contained within future chapters by manipulating the information contained in the relevant tables.
Question 1
The task word ‘discuss’ require students to consider both sides of something. In this case, ‘discussing’ the ability of the criminal justice system to achieve the principles of justice requires students to write about relevant strengths and weaknesses. For this activity, students should aim to cover the presumptionof innocence.
A discussion may include the following points:
- The defendant will never be asked to defend themselves against something they have not been fully informed of and already proved guilty of – this knowledge and protection gives them greater access to justice.
However, in 2012 the Victorian Parliament reduced the protection of double jeopardy for serious indictable offences – this decreases fairness because defendants can be brought back to trial even though they were presumed innocent the first time and found not guilty; it also decreases access to justice with the second trial because their finances will be depleted, and they are more likely to be assumed guilty if they are charged multiple times.
- The presumption of innocence is upheld by procedures such as bail, protecting human rights and fairness by not punishing someone before they have been found guilty – it also allows the defendant to prepare adequately for their case and earn money in the months or years before trial, which gives them greater access to justice and increases the equality between them and the prosecution. Furthermore, while the presumption of innocence is compromised by procedures such as holding an accused person on remand, this allows the court to selectively hold defendants who pose a significant threat to the community, thus protecting innocent people – it also allows the court to ensure that defendants at significant risk of fleeing will face justice at trial – these may compromise the rights of the individual accused, but they are important for the overall fairness of the system and the access to justice of the community.
However, in reality, most defendants do not properly receive a presumption of innocence – juries and members of the community tend to assume someone is guilty once they have been charged, because the police are given the benefit of the doubt – this is unfair. For example, in 2014 Lateline aired the results of a juror experiment that found that 36 per cent of jurors delivered a guilty verdict when the defendant was seated next to their lawyer; 47 per cent did when they were in a dock; and 60 per cent did when the dock was enclosed. Procedures such as holding suspects on remand unfairly deny the defendant the right to the presumption of innocence, and jeopardises their access to justice because they are much less able to prepare for their defence and cannot earn money in the meantime. For example, some offences (such as murder) carry with them a presumption that bail will be refused, even though the defendant should receive the same presumption of innocence no matter what the charge. In 2017 the categories for which there is a presumption of refusing bail were also increased by the Victorian Parliament following the motor vehicle killings in Bourke Street mall in the CBD. Furthermore, the presumption of innocence is compromised by procedures such as remand, but granting bail can mean that a suspect flees before trial and the community does not get the satisfaction of seeing justice be achieved – this is unfair in the bigger picture.
Question 2
The task word ‘evaluate’ require students to consider both sides of something, as well as express an opinion judging the relative strengths of the arguments. For example, a student might argue, based on evidence when referring to the presumptionof innocence, that the criminal justice system does achieve the principles of justice. In this case, ‘evaluating’ the ability of the criminal justice system to achieve the principles of justice requires students to write about relevant strengths and weaknesses.
An evaluation may include the following points:
- The defendant will never be asked to defend themselves against something they have not been fully informed of and already proved guilty of – this knowledge and protection gives them greater access to justice.
However, in 2012 the Victorian Parliament reduced the protection of double jeopardy for serious indictable offences – this decreases fairness because defendants can be brought back to trial even though they were presumed innocent the first time and found not guilty; it also decreases access to justice with the second trial because their finances will be depleted, and they are more likely to be assumed guilty if they are charged multiple times.
- The presumption of innocence is upheld by procedures such as bail, protecting human rights and fairness by not punishing someone before they have been found guilty – it also allows the defendant to prepare adequately for their case and earn money in the months or years before trial, which gives them greater access to justice and increases the equality between them and the prosecution. Furthermore, while the presumption of innocence is compromised by procedures such as holding an accused person on remand, this allows the court to selectively hold defendants who pose a significant threat to the community, thus protecting innocent people – it also allows the court to ensure that defendants at significant risk of fleeing will face justice at trial – these may compromise the rights of the individual accused, but they are important for the overall fairness of the system and the access to justice of the community.
However, in reality, most defendants do not properly receive a presumption of innocence – juries and members of the community tend to assume someone is guilty once they have been charged, because the police are given the benefit of the doubt – this is unfair. For example, in 2014 Lateline aired the results of a juror experiment that found that 36 per cent of jurors delivered a guilty verdict when the defendant was seated next to their lawyer; 47 per cent did when they were in a dock; and 60 per cent did when the dock was enclosed. Procedures such as holding suspects on remand unfairly deny the defendant the right to the presumption of innocence, and jeopardises their access to justice because they are much less able to prepare for their defence and cannot earn money in the meantime. For example, some offences (such as murder) carry with them a presumption that bail will be refused, even though the defendant should receive the same presumption of innocence no matter what the charge. In 2017 the categories for which there is a presumption of refusing bail were also increased by the Victorian Parliament following the motor vehicle killings in Bourke Street mall in the CBD. Furthermore, the presumption of innocence is compromised by procedures such as remand, but granting bail can mean that a suspect flees before trial and the community does not get the satisfaction of seeing justice be achieved – this is unfair in the bigger picture.