The outcome was hailed a victory for representative government, democracy, government accountability and fundamental human rights. However, perhaps the biggest social issue related to the case, the result was in essence a vindication of Indigenous and Aboriginal rights. Obvious social issues applied in the case, after all, societal prejudice against prisoners is what first spawned the Howard governments blanket ban of prisoners voting rights. However, Aboriginal issues were also called into question, as Indigenous Australians are incarcerated at a rate 13 times higher than that of non Indigenous Australians. The case also brought to light serious flaws relating to the system of representative and accountable government.
5 Giving evidence in court. 5 Can the court process be improved? 6 Conclusion 6 Reference List 7 Abstract The following report discusses, using both an observed court hearing and the expectation set by the court and society of the legal and court systems, the effectiveness of the court process within NSW and Australia.
Annotated Bibliography: Australian Court System Annotated Bibliography Opeskin, Brian. 2013. The state of the judicature: A statistical profile of Australian courts and judges. The Sydney Law Review, 35, (3): 489-517. This article by Opeskin (2013) aims to provide a detailed account of Australian courts that accurately reflects how it functions today.
But somehow, when I present this same basic belief in the context of a secular humanist thrust into the brutal world of criminal justice, it loses its coherence. (Feige 238) Feige cites the criminal justice environment as “brutal,” which has been demonstrated time and time again in the book. He sums up his argument by reminding his audience that there exists no relative glamour in being a public defender: “We public defenders are a strange breed: passionate people spending ourselves in a Sisyphean struggle for justice in a system rigged to crush us” (Feige 268). Exceptionally thankful, then, should all people be for public defenders who spend day in and day out consistently doomed to fail.
The relevance of juries in the Australian criminal system given the expansion in modern technology has been questioned regarding the effectiveness of ordinary people judging complex legal issues. The jury system was developed in England between the 12th and 15th century, in a time when courts relied more on the theory of a jury judging its own peers. With complex evidence presented in courts and the advances in technology available to the average citizen, the use of the jury system has been reported to have problems regarding the comprehension and impartiality. There are many pros and cons to the jury system currently in use in our Australian legal system, for the jury system to be able to work coherently with our legal system these pros and
Stevenson's approach to Just Mercy is both personal and analytical. He effectively intertwines personal narratives with legal insights to humanize his clients and illustrate the broader implications of their cases. The book's strength lies in Stevenson's ability to provoke empathy and outrage simultaneously, compelling readers to confront uncomfortable truths about racial bias and societal neglect. Stevenson’s critique of immunity laws and the lack of accountability for powerful individuals is particularly effective. His call to hold these individuals accountable is a powerful reminder of the hypocrisy and need for systemic reform.
1.0 Introduction Section 80 guarantees the right to trial by jury. The Queensland Jury Act 1995 provides the current legislation which decrees that all trials on indictment must be by jury. In the ninety years since this legislation was passed, an increase of trial complexity has occurred, leaving many jurors with the inability to comprehend the information and evidence procured in a trial. This proceeds to make lay juries ineffective and unreliable. To remedy the situation, specialised juries should be introduced to minimize the amount of incorrect verdicts, misunderstandings in court, jury misconduct, and avoidance of jury duty.
Richardson’s case was complicated because of his lack of resources to hire a good lawyer, leading to a trial that didn’t consider his mental health and background. This example proves how socio-economic status can determine the defense a convict gets, leading to unfair trials and unjust prison sentences for the poor. This inability to afford a proper lawyer creates a cycle of poverty and imprisonment, where unjustly treated “convicts” are stuck in a system that doesn’t provide equal opportunities for justice. The inequality portrayed throughout the case of Herbert Richardson proves that people from poor backgrounds are more likely to be convicted and get harsher sentences. Just Mercy also illustrates how racial and socio-economic issues cross and work hand-in-hand to create a very flawed justice
Furthermore, Just Mercy emphasizes the importance of individuals with privilege actively fighting injustice with their resources. The author admits that he could not have accomplished what he did without the support of others, whether they were colleagues or strangers eager to lend a helping hand. Ultimately, Just Mercy is a must-read for anybody interested in social justice concerns or seeking encouragement in tough times. It emphasizes real-life events that will cause readers to reconsider their ideas about our judicial system while also offering insight into how we can all work together to make a
In the book Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson, he talks about how some people do not get fair treatment in the legal system, especially if they can not afford good lawyers. I think the book is really important because it shows how the justice system can be unfair. I am going to talk about two big problems: first, how some people do not get good legal help because they can not pay for it, and second, how young people, especially those who are struggling, are treated unfairly in court. We will look at examples from the book, like Johnnie D., Trina Garnett, Charlie, and Antonio Nunez, to see why these are big problems and what we can do about them. Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson shows how the legal system in America often treats people unfairly, especially
While Australia’s legal system seeks to uphold the principle of the rule of law, it is not perfect and sometimes injustices occur. These injustices are called miscarriages of justice, and are often caused by several breaches to the rule of law. Generally a miscarriage of justice is caused by a misidentification by an eyewitness, media pressure for an early conviction, the temptation
I think remembering to follow Dow’s example of practicing empathy and treating the accused with dignity will be helpful in this role, by allowing me to focus on outcomes that both serve justice and allow the rehabilitation of those found guilty of crimes. The same way Dow’s Ted Talk struck a chord with me, Kimberley Motley’s Ted Talk also stood out as a potent example of how the law could work for those most vulnerable in society but often doesn’t. Kimberley used her knowledge, privilege and expertise to defend marginalized communities with an emphasis on women in Afghanistan. By using the Afghan tribal council “Jirga” to find alternative solutions to a dispute over a debt that would’ve otherwise been settled with an illegal child marriage.
The primary strategies and tactics used by Legal Aid Ontario are focused on providing low-income people with legal aid services, educating the public about legal rights and access to justice, fighting for policy changes, and collaborating with other stakeholders to achieve better access to justice. I've utilized Legal Aid in court a lot, so I know it works. There is evidence that the techniques and methods used by Legal Aid Ontario are a successful means of bringing about societal change in relation to the social justice issue of uneven access to justice. The advocacy work of Legal Aid Ontario has resulted in meaningful policy changes that support greater access to justice. For instance, Legal Aid Ontario's advocacy helped to secure more funding for legal aid services in Ontario in 2020, ensuring that more low-income people have access to legal representation.
As a student, I tackled issues affecting disadvantaged members of the university community as the University of Sydney Union Social Justice Convenor, drafted parliamentary submissions on legislative and policy proposals at the Sydney Centre for International Law, and assisted one of Australia’s foremost international human rights lawyers in making a successful UN Human Rights Committee complaint about the indefinite detention of refugees. I also edited two academic journals – the Sydney Law Review and Dissent – and held senior leadership positions at one of Australia’s largest youth-run organisations, the Australian Youth Climate
Self Help Reflection Paper: Alcoholics Anonymous Alcoholics Anonymous was founded in the city of Akron, Ohio by two exceptionally different men. Bill Wilson was a New York stockbroker while Dr. Bob Smith was a physician (Wiechelt, 2015, p.1011). While the pair led two widely different professions, they shared commonality in the fact that they both struggled with an alcohol addiction. Through several meetings, the two quickly realized that there was a great need for a support system for effective recovery. Each of them brought something unique to the table, creating a perfect mixture of ideas to form a well rounded framework for a recovery group.
