Category: Due Process

What is Due Process and where did it come from? Essentially, due process of law is the legal requirement that a government must respect all of an individual’s lawful rights before taking from them. It prohibits a state from depriving an individual or group of individuals of their privileges by establishing procedural safeguards. Specific elements of due process include the right to a notice of the charges against you, the opportunity to be heard, and the opportunity to defend yourself. When a system of law ignores any of these steps before convicting someone this constitutes a violation of due process and the rule of law. The very concept of due process was originally documented in the magna carta in 1215 which was first referred to as “due course of law” then was provided in the 5th and 14th amendments of the U.S constitution. This view was widely accepted by american courts during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (cato-unbound). The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government and the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the states. The due process avoids you to be forced to testify against yourself. Due process also means no double jeopardy. It only applies to the government, either state or federal. It is significant to every citizen of the united states because it directly impacts what the government can and can’t do with your rights. There are two types of due process which are procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before life, liberty, or property can be taken. Substantive due process ensures that laws or government actions are reasonable and asks whether or not the government had sufficient justification for infringing on a right.

Where did Trial by Jury come from? The history of trial by jury in England is influential because many English and later British colonies adopted the English common law system in which trial by jury plays an important part. Many traditions, such as the number of members being twelve, originated in England in the 12th century when Henry 11 developed the jury system. Those twelve men were assigned to uncover the facts of the case on their own rather than listen to the arguments in court unlike modern jury (wvaj). The greek system was most likely the first form of juries in England, with it arriving on British shores with the Roman Conquest. By the late 800s, under the leadership of Alfred the Great, trial by a jury of one’s peers became the norm throughout England. William Blackstone, the great historian of English common law, considered the Frankish Inquest, developed in 829 A. D. as the start of the modern jury system. Created by Louis the Pious, the son of Charlemagne, it was a “jury of administrative inquiry.”

Describe how the Law has changed into Written Law and why that is important. Laws obviously existed before writing however, they weren’t written so there wasn’t a way to rely on them which influenced more chaos. Our founding fathers were mostly the ones who put laws into effect and took over in writing laws such as the bill of rights in the constitution. However, the idea of written laws goes back to mesopotamian culture for the civilization of the greeks and romans. The code of Hammurabi written by king of babylon is often said to be the origin of written laws and a formal legal system to which many look upon on. Writing the laws prevented the same mistakes to be done and or cases and files to be lost. Written laws also allowed the government and society to grow since there are laws for everyone to follow. It must have also helped citizens rely or trust the government more if they knew what the laws were and what rights they had. Not only did it help citizens but it helped the government be more powerful and have dependable enforcement. If the law is not written, then how will the state ever enforce it? That is why written laws are significant to depend upon them and guide us (enotes). The law serves many purposes which include protecting rights and liberties, establishing standards, resolving disputes and maintaining order. Without laws, citizens would be taken advantage of and the government would be unsuccessful.

Describe the evolution of Law and how we got to where we are today. The evolution of law began before history was recorded with laws built up one by one as disputes were settled. The development of rules in society predates both courts and the written law. In america our law system came from great britain. The settlers of the original 13 colonies came from europe and they brought with them their own set of rules and principles to be used in their new society. The english common law was the system of law in England at that time and was quickly adopted throughout the colonies. The early tribes of england each held their own set of rules but this system was later formalized. This then later led to the first law document which was the magna carta that established the principle that everyone is subject to the law.

A pendulum is when there is this thing, such as a line, moving left and right. It is seen everywhere, whether it is a super simple concept like the grandfather clock or a complex one that has to do with the crime control and due process models. The crime control model “refers to a theory of criminal justice which places emphasis on reducing the crime in society through increased police and prosecutorial powers.”(“USLegal,” n.d. Par. 1). The due process model “focuses on individual liberties and rights and is concerned with limiting the powers of government”(“USLegal,” n.d. Par. 1). These are very different models of the Criminal Justice System, and this is why it creates a Pendulum type of effect. Over time, this imaginary line moves from the Due Process Model to the Crime Control Model and vice versa. The ideal place that we want that line to be is somewhere in the middle. This means that it is not too close to one type of model. Being too close to one type of model leads to a lot of bad things. These bad things can happen in basically any part of the Criminal Justice System, such as sentencing, prisons, plea bargains, etc.

There are plenty of examples of when that imaginary line goes toward the Crime Control Model. Some of the examples are landmark court cases, and one of these court cases is the landmark court case, Santobello V. New York, which occurred in 1971. This case basically made plea bargains more important in cases. Santobello was convicted, and he pled not guilty to it, but then he received a plea deal and he took it. He had to wait a long time after this and by the time he went back to court, a lot had changed. There was a different prosecutor and instead of giving him the original plea deal that Santobello had accepted, he gave him the maximum sentence, which was a year. Santobello was not happy with this and he appealed, to no success. It went up to the supreme court and they decided that, “Even though the trial judge claimed that the prosecutor’s recommendation did not influence his sentencing decision, the prosecutor had a duty to uphold the original agreement” (Oyez, n.d. Par. 3). It also states that “The opinion emphasized that the plea bargaining process is a crucial part of the criminal justice system” (Oyez, n.d. Par. 3). The reason this “pushes” that imaginary line towards the crime control model is because it makes the plea bargaining process legitimate. It is a way to get more people to take a sentence and get through crimes and trials faster.

Another example of a landmark court case that had the imaginary line lean towards the Crime Control Model is Nix V. Williams. This is a case that happened in 1984. The guy, Williams, was arrested for murder. They had a search for the girl’s body and they ended up finding her. However, something very interesting happened during the search. “…after responding to an officer’s appeal for assistance, Williams made statements to the police (without an attorney present) which helped lead the searchers to the child’s body. The defendant’s Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest” (Oyez, n.d. Par. 1). Although the exclusionary rule is a thing, and that this might have seemed like it was violating it, it actually wasn’t. This showed that there was an exception to the exclusionary rule. This exception was definitely in favor of the police finding evidence to convict him, even though it technically violated the 4th amendment.

There are also plenty of examples of when that imaginary line goes more toward the Due Process Model. One example is Mapp V. Ohio, which is a historical landmark court case that occurred in 1961. In this court case, Police Officers searched Dollree Mapp’s house because they were looking around for a suspect, but they did not have a warrant to do this search. Although the police officers didn’t find the suspect, they did find other things. The Police officers “did discover certain allegedly “lewd and lascivious” books and pictures, the possession of which was prohibited under Ohio state law. Mapp was convicted of violating the law on the basis of this evidence” (Diugnan, 2019, Par. 2). As you can see, the police officers did not have a warrant to actually do this search. This is when the exclusionary rule comes into play. The exclusionary rule is a law that says that evidence can’t be used if it is acquired illegally. In the end, the judges ruled that evidence obtained illegally is invalid in a state court and that it violated the fourth amendment (Duignan, 2019). This whole case is an example of that imaginary line swinging towards the due process model because it is in favor of the civilian. It shows that “regular” people have protection and rights that the government and everyone working with them have to abide by.

Another court case that leaned heavily towards the due process side was Missouri V. Frye and it happened in 2011. Frye was offered 2 deals, but his lawyer never said anything about them to him. So, not knowing about those 2 deals, Frye just pleaded guilty. He then appealed and said that his lawyer should have told him about it. Although Frye lost when it was taken up to a higher court, it still had the pendulum swing straight towards the Due Process side. This is because the court established a rule that an ineffective council on a plea bargain violates the sixth amendment.

As you can see, there are plenty of times where the pendulum moves. Sometimes, it only “swings” a little, but sometimes it can swing all the way. This causes problems in way more places than just plea deals. I only chose some cases, but there are a lot more of them to look at. If you do your research, you can see when and where this shift actually happens. We should always hope that the pendulum never swings too far to one side. The middle is exactly where we want it to be as much as possible.

Ultimately, the SCOTUS held in this case that the minimum wage law was constitutional because it sensibly controlled contracts to protect both the health and well being of the workers.

Justices Hughes, McReynolds, Stone, Brandeis, and Cardozo held the majority opinion. These SCOTUS justices arrived at this decision with agreement as delivered by Justice Hughes by the main reasoning that the freedom of contract is not directly mentioned in the Constitution. However, the Constitution does directly specify the right of liberty and outlaws stripping liberty when there is no procedural due process. According to the majority, liberty is conditional upon suppressing the due process as well as rational regulation by the state to protect its best interests (Skelton). The majority additionally reasoned that under the Due Process Clause, Washington’s statute did not breach the freedom of contract because it was reasonable besides being in the best economic and social interests of the state. In addition, the majority reasoned that the government has a full discretionary field when it comes to matters about protecting the health and wellbeing of U.S. citizens (Bernstein). Therefore, exploiting low class workers who have different and less bargaining power with other people is harmful to their welfare. Besides approaching the matter from a chronological of events perspective, historians have occasionally debated on whether the political and ideological atmosphere at the time affected the unexpected turn of events demonstrated by Justice Roberts in this case (Skelton). Roberts could have been influenced by President Roosevelt’s presidential reelection or the positive accomplishments of the New Deal causing him to shift his party affiliation away from conservatism. Major criticisms arouse from Justice Sutherland, who stated that politics as well as public opinion should not have an influence on the court’s judicial interpretation of the Constitution. (“West Coast Hotel v. Parrish”)

The majority opinion led the court to the conclusion to overturn the Adkins v. Children’s Hospital decision in 1923 (White). At the time, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish was a highly controversial case, although it has become sensible in today’s world. The decision reached by the SCOTUS immediately repudiated the landmark decision reached in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital case. This particular case ruled that laws regarding fixed employment terms in contracts automatically breached the Clause of Due Process, which preserves a citizen’s substantive freedom to contract labor freely. Political and economic pressures lead the court to dismiss the substantive due process as inadequate. The decision in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish case was made immediately after President Roosevelt recommended a “court-packing scheme” that would, in turn, add some justices issued in “anti-Lochner” to the court as a way of protecting the New Deal ratification along with progressive laws to help economic development (Skelton). However, in the Adkins v. Children’s Hospital case, SCOTUS voted before Roosevelt publicly announced his plan. In this case, the court ruled that federal minimum wage laws that were applied to women were unconstitutional deprivations of liberty of contract. Yet, with the help of Roosevelt’s court-packing strategy, SCOTUS decision in the West Coast Hotel v. Parrish case affirmed the State of Washington’s Supreme Court’s initial judgment, by declaring that Washington’s minimum wage statute is constitutional and not an infringement of liberty due to the fact that its goal is to serve as protection for the prosperity of the state and health, happiness, and fortunes for its citizens.

Justice Hughes asserted that considering the fact that it was 1913 when Washington’s first bill dealing with minimum wage was introduced as it was passed by a sweeping majority of both Houses of Congress and fully established in 1923, known as the Piper Bill, in efforts to ensure safety over women’s health and morality that the court’s majority opinion is constitutionally justified. Not only taking into account the year of 1913 when it was first introduced but also having awareness of the irregular patterns of economic and social events occurring between 1913 and 1923 legally supports Washington statute’s grant of police power over minimum age is constitutional (White). In equivalence, the majority opinion took into consideration the economic crisis and financial burdens people and the state were facing at the time as the procedural Due Process Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution were respectively obeyed, as Washington’s passed its statute appropriately through the state’s legislative process for the purpose of upholding the constitutionality of it government’s duties to protect and maintain security of its state along with its citizens.

Justice George Sutherland was at first the only holder of a dissent opinion, but later on Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, and Butler joined in to support his divergent argument These Justices argued that the appellate court’s decision should be reviewed and overruled. They reasoned that changes in political or economic events must not alter the court’s understanding of the Constitution. (“West Coast Hotel v. Parrish”) They further argued that the Constitution is not a document that can be interpreted in current circumstances. Justice Sutherland claims, “the words of the Constitution mean today what they did not mean when written-that is, that they do not apply to a situation now to which they would have applied then” (Bernstein). Therefore, the only way the court can interpret the Constitution in context to the current time they are in and change it is by issuing a constitutional amendment to ensure that it is not subject to modification by the actions and feelings of the public. Justice Sutherland believed that the judicial interpretations of the Constitution concrete and unchangeable to the ever changing economic, political, or social events of the world (White). The dissenting opinion reasoned that the court is not in a position to determine the constitutionality of legislation that has already been endorsed by the government’s executive branches in terms of social and economic matters. By doing so, the court would be degrading the separation of powers.

Additionally, the dissenters reasoned that freedom of contract is a rule as well as a prohibition that can only be substantiated by exceptional occurrences or circumstances (“West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish”). Finally, the justices that fell outside the majority held that a state could not have interest in fixing wages for only women and minors because by doing so illustrates that there is gender and age discrimination. They believed that both genders are equally capable of contracting out their labor and should have that liberty and that different age generation shouldn’t be deprived of opportunities based on their age while everyone should have equal liberty to contract.

The majority vote was the more superior opinion because the state had a valid reason to have vested interest in the wages paid to women and children because if the salary for women or minors dropped below a certain level, public support of the state government would fall to a certain degree and the government could be accused of not fulfilling its required duties for the people. In addition, women and children hold unequal bargaining power when compared to their employers throughout the contract process in the business world. Consequently, the state’s interest to enforce a law to improve workplace equality and maintain human welfare standards is fair and constitutionally acceptable. The majority and dissenting opinions represented the major struggle in this case about how the court should interpret the constitution on the basis of either reasserting strongly the initial foundations of the Constitution or affirming a judicial awareness of continuously changing social and economic circumstances of the states.

The decision made in this case plays a significant role in developing the meaning of the U.S. constitutionalism in that it has helped the government understand the Constitution and governmental branches are legally restricted in their individual powers, which makes its legitimacy rely on these constraints. Justice Hughes’ majority opinion exercises “living constitutionalism” in contrast to Justice Sutherland’s dissenting opinion, which addresses original intent of the authors of the Constitution (Bernstein). The Constitution needs to adapt to change throughout time since everything else changes and thus, Hughes’ opinion is more acceptable providing support that judicial decisions should be made on the basis of an adaptable and working Constitution.

All embracing, in this case, the Washington State’s minimum-wage law for women and minors constitutionality was upheld by the SCOTUS, overturning Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, thus upholding the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 and the Social Security Act of 1935. However, it is paramount to note that although political and economic pressures may affect a court’s ruling, they should not impact its constitutional knowledge. The contemporary effects that this case’s decision had to include combating any harmful impact on employees’ health and wellbeing as well as protecting minority groups like women and children from hazardous working conditions. These effects are long term because even today, there is tons of legislation built from this case protecting men, women, and children against mistreatment and abuse among other things in more areas besides the work place. The West Coast Hotel v. Parrish case can be noteworthy, not simply as a triumph of judicial activism but also because the Court purposefully restored the original constitutional interpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been distorted by advocates of the liberty of contract doctrine.

Introduction:

Models of punishment vary according to the severity and type of offence. Retribution (punishment), rehabilitation, deterrence (crime prevention) and incapacitation (i.e. imprisonment) are all models of punishments that are represented within criminal justice policies. These different models of punishment assist in the operation of the criminal justice systems (CJS) and its policies such as ‘due process’ and ‘crime control’ that ensure that the CJS proceeds in a fair, equitable and public way. An offender should be given a fair opportunity to be heard, represented and informed of why they were arrested and are going to court, have their case administered fairly and impartially. I observed six cases total from the New South Wales (NSW) local and district courts over two days and overall, my predominant observations of sentences involving imprisonment and/or community corrections programs suggest that the main models of punishment observed in court are retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. This report will additionally detail how these types/models of punishment such as retribution/incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation observed within court cases assist with principles of justice such as due process and crime control which are examined by the CJS.

The District Court

My personal observations of the sentencings within the NSW district courts explored how serious indictable offences are punished by the CJS. The first observation took place at the NSW District Court and will be referred to as R v Bing; R v Tribbiani (District Court). In the case of R v Bing; R v Tribbiani (District Court), the two defendants (Bing and Tribbiani) were two young men, aged 35 years old and 24 years old respectively, accused of break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence. Mr Bing recruited Mr Tribbiani through his former partner to assist in a break and enter of an alleged drug dealer’s house with intent to steal illicit substances to pay back an outlaw motorcycle gang Mr Bing became indebted to. The premises were alarmed when the two defendants “jimmy-opened” the glass sliding door and were subsequently arrested one week later as a result of setting the alarm off. Mr Bing’s defence of a dysfunctional upbringing leading to long-term involvement with illicit drugs (with additional efforts, however, to improve way of life) as per the psychological report that was conducted, reduced his moral culpability. The defence provided additional mitigating reasons for Mr Tribbiani’s involvement and followed as; a dysfunctional upbringing leading to long-term involvement with illicit drugs as per the psychological report, and the exploiting of long-term mental illness (schizophrenia) by Mr Bing’s former partner to engage in criminal behaviours additionally reduced his moral culpability. Aggravating factors for Mr Tribbiani, however, were that he was on two s 9 bonds at the time of the offence. This form of due process ensures the criminal procedure is conducted fairly where it impartially and fairly examines all aspects of the case, the standard of proof and allows the defendants to present their case.

As a result of evidence implicating Mr Bing and Mr Tribbiani of the offence they are accused of, the Judge, after outlining the facts of the case (background of offence and why it was committed), party involvement, mitigating and/or aggravating factors, decision and reasons for decision, convicted both defendants of break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence. This response operates under the crime control principle where the judicial system is taking the responsibility of punishing a crime to achieve justice and uphold the law (Walklate 2017). Mr Bing was sentenced to discounted 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment due to his early guilty plea and Mr Tribbiani was sentenced a discounted 2 years imprisonment due to his early guilty plea. Mr Tribbiani was additionally issued an intensive correction order that ordered he does not engage with any illicit drugs and alcohol and undertake a supervised plan by a Community Corrections officer. The imprisonment sentences imposed to both Mr Bing and Mr Tribbiani show incapacitation and retribution used as the model of punishment in this case where they are punished through incarceration as a form of retribution for their crime. Mr Tribbiani’s intensive corrections order showed the deterrence and rehabilitation model of punishment be used by the CJS as a form of rehabilitation for an ongoing mental condition that contributed to his involvement in criminal acts. Additionally, any breach of these conditions would ensue sanctions, which theoretically as a deterrent for Mr Tribbiani, as those with higher arrests commit less crime, therefore, being deterred (Lochner 2003).

The second observation took place again in the NSW District Court and supports my thesis on how cases within the District Court are finalised predominantly with imprisonment sentences, showing the deterrence and retribution as the main model of punishments being observed. In the case of R v Geller (District Court), the defendant (Mr Geller) was heavily intoxicated and engaged in a domestic argument with his partner ‘Rachel’, that led to the couple’s daughter calling the police. A struggle ensued when three officers arrived to control the situation and Mr Geller became engaged in a physical altercation with the officers, leading to his attempt to reach for one of the officer’s firearms with the intention to use it as a weapon on them. As a result, two officers suffered minor injuries and Mr Geller was charged and pleaded guilty to several offences. The offences consisted of, common assault, assaulting three police officers occasioning actual bodily harm, attempting to use an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, and choking a police officer. The role of the judicial system explores the crime control and due process model evidently shown in the judicial process of this case being conducted and prosecuting the individual as a means to uphold the law. As a result, the offender was sentenced to, after a 15% discount, 3 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months. The punishment explores the model of punishment being retribution and deterrence and continues to articulate the relationship that the criminal justice principles have with these models.

These cases explore how a judicial process of a case (due process) ensures a fair case balanced on the standard of proof, with the responsibility to uphold the law (crime control) (Walklate 2017) and to prosecute/punish the individual is consistent and articulate the models of punishment observed when an offender is sentenced (i.e. a sentence of imprisonment articulates the retribution and deterrence model of punishment).

The Local Court:

Similarly to my observations of the district court, following observations of the local court exhibited similar ways in which serious offences are dealt with. In the case of R v Green (Local Court), the young male offender (Mr Green) was charged with possession of a prohibited drug and assault occasioning bodily harm after an altercation ensued as a result of a practical joke played on the offender’s father by the offender’s brother. The severity of the altercation meant the victim had to undergo reconstructive surgery to heal the fractures caused by the offender. The court heard Green’s defence of underlying mental health issues; however, it could not assist in the decision as it was not able to be further investigated by psychiatric reports as a result of strict bail conditions. Consequently, the offender was given a sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment with an additional 6 months where parole may be issued, and Green will be supervised by Community Corrections required to attend programs that involve Green’s diagnosed mental conditions. Furthermore, the judge decided to impose no additional penalty for the unrelated offence of possession of a prohibited drug due to the full-time custody sentenced imposed for the more serious offence. The judge’s decision exhibited the retribution and deterrence model of punishment through the penalty of imprisonment. Rehabilitation is also exhibited with participation in community corrections programs that involve the offender’s mental health. The principles of due process and crime control seen throughout the judicial process of the offender’s case, and the sentencing of the offender in order to uphold the law further shows the connection between the theories of criminal justice principles and real cases where these principles are applied.

Finally, in my observation of R v Buffay (Local Court), the defendant (Mr Buffay) was charged with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm concerning a domestic violence offence to which the offender pleaded guilty to when the matter first came before the court. A psychological report detailed that the offender had problems with binge drinking, had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and had been prescribed medication for suffering from depression and at the time of the offence, which furthered reasoning for the offence as “suffering a major depressive disorder”. The defence attempted to dismiss the case on grounds that the defendant was suffering from a mental health condition and to be diverted to the care of mental health professionals rather than the CJS (under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990). Although the offence was deemed out of character, it was denied by the judge and the guilty plea was entered along with the 25% discount. The offender had caused great injuries to the victim through striking the victim’s face with his knee forcefully, causing several teeth to fall from her mouth and caused heavy bleeding. After discussing the facts of the case, the judge convicted and sentenced Mr Buffay to 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.

The retributive model of punishment further explores my claim on how the most frequent model of punishment is retribution with deterrence through observed imprisonment sentences. As aforementioned, the theory of due process and crime control meant the judicial process was conducted fairly and impartially while still upholding the law through prosecuting the defendant who was in breach of the law. This relationship of these processes shows the similarities of the local and district court in dealing different variations of crime (mainly observed was assaults) and their severity that eventually led to the models of punishment being exhibited (i.e. retribution and deterrence through imprisonment). It additionally further shows the links of important criminal justice principles such as due process and crime control and models of punishment such as retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation.

In Summary / Contrasting thoughts:

To summarise, the most frequent model of punishment observed within the NSW local and district courts was retribution and deterrence. The sentencing hearings I observed were all finalised with punishments consisting of imprisonment which explores the similarities between the two courts. Assaults within the lower court carried lesser sentences than those within the District Court due to the severity of the offence. The principles of crime control and due process were additionally correlated more with the frequent model of punishment observed which is incarceration and deterrence seen within sentences of imprisonment. Finally, despite all observations of cases within the local and district court being finalised with an imprisonment sentence, it is still considered a “last resort” principle (Brown and Johns 2017) as per 2017 statistics from BOCSAR concluding that imprisonment makes up only approximately 8.7% of penalties imposed by the Local Court. However, the 2017 BOCSAR statistics on the District Court’s penalties contradict the “last resort” imprisonment principles as it was concluded that more than half of the cases finalised in the District Court (approximately 68%) saw offenders receive retributive punishment (imprisonment) as their punishment/penalty. Additionally, due to these high amounts of retributive penalties observed, the relevant debate over whether penalties should be based on retributive justice can compromise either the ability to deter a person from crime. If the deterrence model of punishment/justice where maximal deterrence means a lesser penalty imposed, then it can impact “the gravity of an offence” (Kelly 2009). This can, therefore, diminish the criminal justice principles that aim to uphold the law and ensure a fair/impartial judicial process (such as natural justice and due process). The abandonment of rehabilitation processes 30 years ago in hopes to embrace and practice justice through deterrence is believed to now dominate the criminal justice landscape (Gendreau 1996) and is supported through my observations of retributive punishments such as imprisonments that act as a deterrent for crime.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, I would claim that as a result of my observations the most frequent model of punishment observed in the NSW local and district courts was retribution and deterrence. Rehabilitation was additionally observed in cases where illicit drug/alcohol abuse and mental health conditions were involved but were mainly combined with the deterrence model (i.e. in intensive community corrections that required supervised plans and applied sanctions if breached). Observations in the local court contrasted statistics, as all cases observed in the local court had outcomes of imprisonment, however, statistically only equates to a small percentage of outcomes overall within the NSW local courts. Similar to my observations of the Local Court, all outcomes observed in the District Court were finalised with imprisonment sentences, correlating more with the higher overall statistics of imprisonment penalties. Therefore, these models of punishments observed in court explored the relationship of the principles of justice such as due process and crime control being enacted during the court cases.