Parliament Criminal Court - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1801 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Case study Did you like this example? Contemporary Issue The 2007 criminal case of R Vs Niehus, criticism of a District Court Judge Marie Shaw by State Upper House Member of Parliament Dennis Hood. Question Is Judicial Independence jeopardised by State Members of Parliament who publicly criticise the sentencing handed by Criminal Court Judges? Judicial Independence is crucial to the operation of a democratic society, leaving little debate that an independent judiciary is the â€Å"fragile bastion† in our democratic system of government. Thus judges, when presiding over cases, are entirely free from any intrusion or intimidation executed by external forces. The Westminster System, implemented from Britain, ensures the courts have the confidence of the community and all cases provide an outcome exclusively on merit, as Michael OConnell, Victims of Crime Commissioner (Appendix 3) states: â€Å"The Judiciary shall decide matters due to impartiality on the basis of facts.† However, questions have been raised whether judicial independence is jeopardised by external forces publicly criticising a judges verdict. One such example occurred when State Upper House Member of Parliament, Dennis Hood, publicly attacked District court Judge Marie Shaws final ruling in the 2007 criminal case of R Vs Niehus, prompting an order for her dismissal. David Swain, Retired Chief Magistrate (Appendix 2) reports, â€Å"Judicial Independence is a vital part of the Westminster System.† To guarantee absolute judicial independence and uphold the confidence of the community, the judiciary must have complete separation from both the Legislative and Executive arms of Government, and any other external political forces. Accomplishment of this is achieved in a number of ways; first, Judges are appointed by the Executive arm and dismissed by the Legislative arm, to avert the chance of one arm of Government grasping complete control over the judiciary and Section 72 of â€Å"The Australian Constitution Act† (1900) specifies the dismissal of a judge can only occur on two grounds; misbehaviour and incapacity. Secondly, a permanent tenure is provided, on the g rounds a judge must retire at the age of 70, with the exception of Family Court Justices, who have an obligation to retire at 65. This assures judges cannot be removed if their decision does not support the governments request, as Peter Hasket, Retired Magistrate (Appendix 4) states, â€Å"Even if a number of people dont want them, their position stays the same.† Thirdly, a fixed remuneration is guaranteed, preventing both salaries from being diminished throughout tenure and manipulation occurring. However, salaries can be increased by government on objective factors. Fourthly, judges are ensured judicial privilege, allowing them to have freedom of speech while presiding on the bench and delivering verdicts. Thus judges cannot be threatened by criminal prosecution or sued for vilification, a fact David Swain (Appendix 2) suggested â€Å"one can take comfort in.† Finally, individuals who are selected for judicial office must have suitable training and credentials in the law, and no discrimination is to occur on the basis of sex, colour, race, status, religion or political influence. The Honourable Justice John Basten- Judge of the Supreme Court New South Wales (2005:1) reports, â€Å"Principles of open justice play an important part of our courts.† Justice is governed in an open court, where the public has complete access, although exceptions occur, for example, courtrooms can only provide for a small number of spectators. Furthermore, for those who do not attend, sentencing remarks are available via the Internet, and significant cases are usually covered in the print and electronic media. This then ensures openness, as it is vital in promoting the publics confidence. However, information handed to the public via the media raises questions to the extent of its reliability. David Swain (Appendix 2) reports, â€Å"99% of all cases, which go through the courts dont get any media attention.† This indicates that the media has one priority, which is to attract public attention and have general appeal, in order to sell papers. As well as this, The Honourable Justice John Basten (2005:1) states, â€Å"reporters who cover trials often move from one court room to another during the course of a day, obtaining only an incomplete picture of what is happening in any particular case.† Along with media attention, public criticism is also created. â€Å"Sentencing reflects the views of the community, because in effect, they are prescribing parliaments will,† states Michael OConnell (Appendix 3). However, it is impossible to please all citizens, thus generating criticism of certain cases, usually through the media. A recent significant case, which generated much public criticism and uproar, was the 2007 criminal case of R Vs Niehus, ruled by District Court Judge Marie Shaw. Dennis Hood, publicly attacked her final ruling, and called for her removal due to the leniency of her suspended sentence. Dennis H ood (2007:1) questioned, â€Å"What possible reason can there be to allow Judge Shaw to continue to hear cases and hand down grossly inadequate sentences to hardened criminals?† Christopher Michael Niehus received a three-year suspended jail sentence, upon the condition that he entered a bond of $400 to uphold good behaviour for a two year period and perform 150 hours of community service, in respect of four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse. Marie Shaw (2007:3) states, â€Å"the matters which favour suspension to which your counsel has referred, are that you are a person of previous good character, you are someone who, both before these offences and subsequently, has engaged in age appropriate relationships. In my view, you are unlikely to offend again.† Marie Shaws position as District Court Judge, entitles her to consider all facts and circumstances and provide an outcome exclusively on merit, which she has confidently done. However, Dennis Hood completely disagreed with Marie Shaws suspended sentence, complaining to the media that, â€Å"abusing a young girl, a 14-year-old girl† resulted in â€Å"a sentence of 150 hours of community service.† Denis Hoods actions of publicly calling for Marie Shaw to be dismissed raised the question to the extent of criticism, which should be allowed without the risk of jeopardising Judicial Independence. David Swain (Appendix 2) states, â€Å"Every now and again one or two people, particularly politicians, turn to their favour, and politically ‘go too far, which can arguably be an attack on independence.† Beneficial criticism of the Judiciary is welcomed and appropriate as it allows public scrutiny and maintains the confidence of the community through integrity. As well as this freedom of speech in our democracy is a fundamental right. Nevertheless, as Michael OConnell (Appendix 3) states, â€Å"the criticism, as in any situation, should focus on the issue, not the ind ividual,† Denis Hoods public ‘out-burst, was directly aimed at Judge Marie Shaw, ultimately causing considerable distress and embarrassment, Marie Shaw (2007:1) states,† I was bitterly disappointed that he attacked my fitness for office on the basis of inaccurate statements.† Soon after Dennis Hoods public ‘outburst, leading judges raised alarms that Judicial Independence was under fire. Chief Justice John Doyle and Chief Judge Terry Worthington stated, â€Å"Mr Hoods push for her removal is contrary to constitutional principle and threatens to undermine the judiciarys independence, also that any attempt to remove a judge could lead to inappropriate pressure on judges to operate in a way acceptable to politicians and any threat to remove a judge from office because of criticism of a judges decision sets a dangerous precedent and who will be threatened next?† Despite maintaining the integrity of its independence, the judiciary understands it will never be immune from public criticism, as it is an essential component of our democratic system of government. David Swain (Appendix 2) states, â€Å"The judiciary is in the same position as any other public institution. It must expect, and should be prepared to deal with, criticism.† However, reforms need to be made in Marie Shaws case, where public criticism was undoubtedly incorrect and taken to a level, which may have jeopardised her independence. Any public criticism, of any arm of government, should always be of benefit to that arm of government. The criticism must purely be aimed at the issues involved and never a direct attack on an individual. In regards to certain views of ‘soft sentences, by politicians as such, the official method of parliamentary review should be employed, not via media outlets. As well as this Michael OConnell (Appendix 3) states, â€Å"(I) rely on victims views. In general, victims who contact me feel that the sentence imposed w as too lenient- in other words, they expected a harsher sentence.† I am confident that the question posed: ‘Is Judicial Independence jeopardised by State Members of Parliament who publicly criticise the sentencing handed by criminal court judges? can be answered in the negative. Dennis Hoods public ‘outburst, was certainly demoralising for Her Honour Judge Shaw, which moved Hood to apologise and retract his statements. Dennis Hood stated in his public apology, â€Å"I recognise that by making these assertions I have caused considerable distress and embarrassment to Judge Shaw.† Although the criticism was unjust, Michael OConnell (Appendix 3) reports, â€Å"it will not affect the general sentencing practices.† Our Attorney-General often comments that, â€Å"courts in common law countries have been independent of the Parliament since the 1600s.† Our current sentencing system works effectively in Australia.   There should be no need to mak e any reforms to the current system as any changes may in fact place the communitys trust in the overall system  at risk.   Our current judicial practices must be preserved to ensure that judges and the overall judicial system are preserved and the so called â€Å"Fragile Bastion† is at all times protected. Judges are accountable for their overall actions and the decisions that they make.   The issue is that parliamentarians need to be careful that when criticising judges it is done lawfully.   As it was clearly stated by David Swain (Appendix 2), The sentencing process is conducted in a manner that does reflect the values, morals and concerns of the community. We need to trust in our current structures of being able to maintain Judicial Independence and preserve the communitys confidence in the legal system. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Parliament Criminal Court" essay for you Create order Bibliography 22/11/2007, ‘Remove judge, urges Upper House MP, ABC News, viewed 24/04/2008 https://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/22/2098109.htm Bailey, Geoff, ‘Legal Studies Key Ideas Stage 2, Adelaide, 2006 Bash, Barbara, ‘Legal Studies Essentials SACE 2, Adelaide Tuition Centre 2008 Basten, John 2005, ‘Court and Media Relationships, viewed 26th April 2008, https://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/11_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_basten301005 Dowdell, Andrew, Henderson, Nick, 23/11/2007, ‘Attorney-General, rejected calls to sack District Court Judge, ABC News, viewed 23/04/2008 https://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22803291-5006301,00.html Doyle, John, 22/08/2003, ‘Judicial Independence and the Separation of Powers, viewed 15/05/2008, https://netk.net.au/SA/SA16.asp#TopOfPage Hasket, Peter, 13/05/2008, Notes from interview Hood, Denis, 05/05/2008, Notes from interview ‘Judicial Sentencing, 22nd November 2007, Extract from the Legislative Council Hansard, viewed 10th May 2008 OConnell, Michael, 08/05/2008, Notes from interview Shaw, Marie, ‘R v Christopher Michael Niehus Sentencing Remarks, District Court, Adelaide, 2007 Swain, David, 06/05/2008, Notes from interview Swain, David, ‘Are Judges Truly Independent?, viewed 6th May 2008 Swain, David, ‘Do Sentencing Laws Reflect Community Attitudes and Values, viewed 6th May 2008

Profile of Serial Killer William Bonin, The Freeway Killer

William Bonin was a serial killer suspected of sexually assaulting, torturing and killing at least 21 boys and young men in Los Angeles and Orange County, California. The press nicknamed him the  The Freeway Killer, because he would pick up young boys who were hitchhiking, sexually assault and murder them, then dispose of their bodies along the freeways. Unlike many serial killers, Bonin had multiple accomplices during his murder spree. Known accomplices included  Vernon Robert Butts, Gregory Matthew Miley, William Ray Pugh, and James Michael Munro. In May 1980,  Pugh was arrested for stealing cars and while in prison provided detectives details connecting the freeway murders to William Bonin in exchange for a lighter sentence. Pugh told detectives that he accepted a ride from Bonin who bragged that he was the Freeway Killer. Later evidence proved that Pugh and Bonins relationship went beyond a one-time ride and that Pugh participated in at least two of the murders. After being placed under police surveillance for nine days,  Bonin was arrested while in the process of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy in the back of his van. Unfortunately, even while under surveillance, Bonin was able to commit one more murder before his arrest. Childhood - Teen Years Born in Connecticut on January 8, 1947, Bonin was the middle child of three brothers. He  grew up in a dysfunctional family with an alcoholic father and a grandfather who was a convicted child molester. Early on he was a troubled kid and ran away from home when he was eight years old. He was later sent to a juvenile detention center for various small crimes, where he allegedly was sexually molested by older teens. After leaving the center he began molesting children. After high school, Bonin joined the U.S. Air Force and served in the Vietnam War as a gunner. When he returned home, he married, divorced and moved to California. A Vow to Never Get Caught Again He was first arrested at age 22 for sexually assaulting young boys and spent five years in jail. After his release, he molested a 14-year-old boy and was returned to prison for an additional four years. Vowing never to get caught again, he began killing his young victims. From 1979 until his arrest in June 1980, Bonin, along with his accomplices, went on a raping, torturing  and killing spree, often cruising California highways and streets for young male hitchhikers and school children. After his arrest, he confessed to killing 21 young boys and young men. Police suspected him in 15 additional murders. Charged with 14 of the 21 killings, Bonin was found guilty and sentenced to death. On February 23, 1996, Bonin was executed by lethal injection, making him the first person to be executed by lethal injection in California history. Freeway Killer Victims Thomas Lundgren, age 14, murdered on May 28, 1979. Accomplices Vernon Butts and William PughMark Shelton, age 17, murdered on August 4, 1979Marcus Grabs, age 17, murdered on August 5, 1979. Accomplice Vernon ButtsDonald Hayden, age 15, murdered on August 27, 1979. Accomplice Vernon ButtsDavid Murillo, age 17, murdered on September 9, 1979. Accomplice Vernon ButtsRobert Wirostek, age 16, murdered on September 27, 1979John Doe, age 14-20, murdered on November 30, 1979Dennis Frank Fox, age 17, murdered on December 2, 1979. Accomplice James MunroJohn Doe, age 15-20, murdered on December 13, 1979Michael McDonald, age 16, murdered on January 1, 1980Charles Miranda, age 14, murdered on February 3, 1980. Accomplice Gregory MileyJames McCabe, age 12, murdered on February 3, 1980. Accomplice Gregory MileyRonald Gaitlin, age 18, murdered on March 14, 1980Harry Todd Turner, age 15, murdered on March 20, 1980. Accomplice William PughGlen Barker, age 14, murdered on March 21, 1980Russell Rugh, age 15, murdered on March 22, 1980Steven Wood, age 16, murdered on April 10, 1980Lawrence Sharp, age 18, murdered on April 10, 1980Darin Lee Kendrick, age 19, murdered on April 29, 1980. Accomplice Vernon ButtsSean King, age 14, murdered on May 19, 1980. Confessed accomplice William PughSteven Wells, age 18, murdered on June 2, 1980. Accomplices Vernon Butts and James Munro Co-Defendants: Vernon Butts: Butts was 22 years old and a factory worker and part-time magician when he met Bonin and began participating in raping and murdering at least six boys. He hung himself while awaiting trial.Gregory Miley: Miley was 19 years old when he got involved with Bonin. He pled guilty to participating in one murder for which he received a sentence of 25 years to life. He is currently in prison.James Munro: Bonin was Munros boss and landlord when Munro participated in the murders of two boys. In a plea bargain, he pled guilty to one murder and received a sentence of 15 years to life. He is still in prison but trying to appeal claiming he was tricked into a plea bargain.William (Billy) Pugh: was the most active accomplice who was charged with one murder, although he confessed to killing two victims. He received  six years for voluntary manslaughter in a plea bargain. Arrest, Conviction, Execution After William Bonins arrest, he confessed to killing 21 young boys and young men. Police suspected him in  an additional 15 other murders. Charged with 14 of the 21 killings, Bonin was found guilty and sentenced to death. On February 23, 1996, Bonin was  executed by lethal injection, making him the first person to be executed by lethal injection in California history. During Bonins murder spree, there was another active serial killer by the name of Patrick Kearney,  using the California freeways as his hunting ground.

What Does Democracy Signifies Free Essays

If firms were not in a competitive environment, they would be able to control the market. Still, there are other factors, which stop firms from controlling the market. Namely the fact that firms do not have perfect information, issues about its objectives or firms may not even know how to maximise profits. We will write a custom essay sample on What Does Democracy Signifies or any similar topic only for you Order Now This is due to the fact that companies use different pieces of information or interpret it differently. Firms can use different tasks in order to achieve the same aim. Companies often set themselves in mission statement; or they try to set goals by which the statement will be achieved; or a specific objective. A firm aims to maximise profits, and that is what this essay will focus on. First, it will give a brief definition of firm and define its objectives. Second, it will examine the assumption of profit maximisation. Third it will confirm whether firms really maximise their profits. Then it will follow by mentioning other alternatives to profit maximisation. Finally in the conclusion, it will include the results of this essay. It is understood by firm ‘ an organisation consisting of one or more individuals working as a decision-making unit to produce goods or services† (Atkinson, B. R. Miller â€Å"Business Economics†). The firm†s objectives are to maximise profits. The amount that the company receives for the sale of its output is called its total revenue. The amount that the firm pays to buy inputs is called its total cost. We, then, define profit as a firm†s total revenue minus its total cost. Thus, if a firm gets  £10,000 from selling its output and spends  £90,000 producing this output, its profit is  £10,000. The above diagram shows how costs, revenue and profit interact with each other. Costs go up with output as well as revenue, but just till a certain point. Revenue falls due to the firm†s necessity to lower its costs in order to rise selling. In other words, in the cost curve firms will experience increasing returns, followed by decreased returns. Revenue will rise, as price falls and quantity goes up. Profits will occur between the two points were the curves intersect. The slope of the two curves are the same and they are given by the marginal value (marginal revenue and marginal cost). Hence, to maximise profit, marginal revenue must equals marginal cost. In order to achieve this, firms must have all the details on the demanded product. Profit maximisation plays an important role within a firm, as it makes innovation possible as well as the payment of higher wages and greater job offers. Moreover, profits create incentives as it is rewarding for entrepreneurs, whose time and skills contributed to the firm†s success. Increasing profits leads to a rise in output and with it consumers also get more satisfied. Thus, it can be said that it is also beneficial to society to raise profits. Profits provide a source of revenue, which reverts in favour of new factories and machinery. In addition, profits encourage innovation again society benefits from it. However, there are still motives for companies to refuse to have high levels of profit. Companies will just be able to maximise profits if owners are in control of the firms. However, in big companies such as Coca-Cola or Shell where, probably, there are many shareholders, it is more difficult to maximise profits. As, in this case managers are more likely to run the business. This leads us to do so called ‘principal-agent problem†. Where owners† objectives may be different from the managers. Hence, due to the rise of the joint-stock company there has developed a split between ownership and control. Ownership belongs now to shareholders, while managers exerce the power of controling. Still, there are motives to choose to maximise profits. Firstly, profit maximisation is still a sign of power, so in a competitive environment firms will opt to maximise profit to ensure its survival; Secondly, both the principal and agent, when confroting a situation of no option, they would prefer to maximise profits rather than lower them; Most important, due to profit maximisation it became possible for economists to study the output and the price of companies and, consequently, study the market. In analysing the managerial approach, it can be noticed that managers will then aim to take precedents over the objectives of the owner. In this case the primary goal of a firm is to maximise its revenue. This will occur because managers† remuneration is more likely to be linked to revenue than to profitability. For example, bank†s tend to regard growing sales positive as well as financial markets, who likes to see growing sales revenue. Most important, sales revenue is still seen as an indication of success. The same occurs to firms that have their main aim to maximise growth. Just like raising revenue, raising growth also leads to higher bonuses. Managers also benefit from it because their status gets better, as the firm has more prestige. Such theory, also suggests that managers try to maximise their own profit benefits. In other words, use firms to get their objectives. Still, there is other theory that states that managers in fact do not maximise anything at all, but they attend to satisfactory levels, theory developed by H. Simon. Here, managers will set a minimum level of profit, keeping shareholders satisfied. This type of approach is probably used by small firms, which are not able to take the big risks that profit maximisation can lead to. Moreover, managers try to keep all members of the firm satisfied, so profit maximisation becames a hard task to achieve. In general, conditions of uncertainty difficults the achievement of sales and profit maximisation. In practise management tries to obtain growth in output and assets from one year to the next and achieve satisfactory growth. On one hand, it is true to say that there is a separation of ownership and control, consequently, this stresses the importance of managers. On the other hand, it is difficult to describe how the different objectives of management and shareholders interact to produce the goals and objectives of the company. How to cite What Does Democracy Signifies, Papers