De Minimis
  • Home
  • Podcast
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • ABOUT US
  • Comment Policy
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
  • Blog

Pardon or Prosecute: Offenders, Special Circumstances and the Law

25/7/2017

 
Vol 12, Issue 1

​NATHAN GRECH

Crimes are reported at all hours of the day online, on television and in print. Often, background information is provided about the offenders themselves. In recent times, one group of characteristics among offenders has emerged as an influential factor on deciding the outcome of criminal cases – that is, special circumstances related to substance addiction, mental health, and cognitive impairment.
Picture
A justice system that acknowledges the impact special circumstances may have upon offending is one well-attuned with reality and contemporary attitudes about diversity. But is taking such an individualised, proactively tolerant approach appropriate in criminal proceedings, when the aim of the game is to protect the public and seek justice by holding offenders responsible for their behaviour?

Obviously, all parties should have the same rights to submit their perspectives to courts, no matter what their circumstances. Further, such a sensitive topic is difficult to raise without coming across as flippant or ignorant to the struggles of those caught up in the criminal justice system.

I think, though, that the question of lessening sentences or pardoning criminal behaviour for offenders with special circumstances needs closer scrutiny. Because no matter who an offender is, or how crimes are committed, is it not true that serious and uniform consequences of some severity are needed to set an example and maintain faith in criminal law and justice?

Place yourself for a moment in the shoes of the judiciary. Would it be appropriate to leniently prosecute someone with addiction-related mental health issues who stole clothing from a department store to fund their drug addiction? Arguably, this sort of crime lacks the same impact that a crime against a person would have,  because a shop is a commercial entity and a person is clearly an emotional being. So then, what if you’re presented with a more moral-based example?

This time, you’re faced with considering sentencing leniency for an adult offender who suffered years of childhood trauma, abuse and neglect, who repeatedly raped and molested children. Do you feel comfortable lessening the term of imprisonment or severity of punishment for this offender? After all, they’ve got special circumstances that have caused them to have an altered sense of what is lawfully acceptable and what isn’t. And you have some level of empathy for the fact that they too have had a turbulent, negative upbringing.

What is the best approach here, to ensure public safety and faith in the criminal justice system be maintained? How should criminal trials be handled when special circumstances complicate the submissions and facts surrounding a case? The more you attempt to consider how you yourself might approach these sorts of issues, the harder it becomes to treat both parties to a case with the same, uniform, impartial approach.

So then, should we actually somewhat “excuse” this group of offenders because we see the impact mitigating circumstances can have when criminal behaviour is involved? Or are we better off, in the interests of public safety and harmony, painting all offenders with the same strict brush, irrespective of their personal characteristics?

Ultimately, this issue is contentious and ripe for independent review and investigation. Only through competent management and forethought does the criminal justice system have a hope to resolve the matter sooner rather than later.

Nathan Grech is a first-year JD student

The rest of this issue:
  • Nationalise the Profession
  • What is it Like Being an Anarchist Law Student
  • On Difficult Readings​
  • Big Data: Challenges to the Freedom of Political Communication through Meme Pages


​
MK
25/7/2017 08:10:49 pm

Do you have any conclusion here?

Rando
27/7/2017 05:29:41 pm

I would advise you to go to sentencing hearings and actually experience some of the deliberative processes between judges and barristers before embarking on your next exposition

Rando
27/7/2017 05:32:15 pm

Mitigating circumstances are not mere "excuses" for those accused of crimes. They are legitimate considerations for the justice system and allow the courts to tailor exactly what sort of rehabilitative/punitive measure is needed for the accused


Comments are closed.
    Picture

    Archives

    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

  • Home
  • Podcast
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • ABOUT US
  • Comment Policy
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
  • Blog