Question

The criminal justice system consists of police, courts, and corrections. Which of these do you think is the weakest link and what can be done to correct the flaws.

Answer 1

Answer:

The 3 links of the The criminal justice system are police, courts, and corrections.

1) Police:

Broadly, the whole community is a ‘client’ of the police. Some members of the community, who have more direct dealings with the police, can be considered specific client groups, for example:

• victims of crime
• those suspected of, or charged with, committing offences
• those reporting criminal incidents
• those involved in traffic-related incidents
• third parties (such as witnesses to crime and people reporting accidents)
• those requiring police services for non-crime-related matters.

• The Productivity Commission also said:

  The key objectives for police services are:

• to allow people to undertake their lawful pursuits confidently and safely
• to bring to justice those people responsible for committing an offence
• to promote safer behaviour on roads
• to support the judicial process and achieve efficient and effective court case management and judicial processing, providing safe custody for alleged offenders, and ensuring fair and equitable treatment of both victims and alleged offenders.

• These objectives are to be met through the provision of services in an equitable and efficient manner.

• Barriers and gaps

  As the consultations and submissions demonstrate, the objectives described above are frequently not met.

  The necessity for police to be able to broadly identify disability was raised repeatedly especially as it was reported that police have difficulty distinguishing between intellectual disability, psychosocial disability and acquired brain injury, amongst other cognitive disabilities.​​​​​

2) Courts:

(a) Evidence and people with disabilities

Competency

People with disabilities frequently experience prejudicial assessments of their competency to give evidence either as a witness to criminal proceedings or as a defendant to proceedings. This has the potential to preclude people with disabilities from accessing justice.

In the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, Uniform Evidence Acts have been enacted. Queensland, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia have not adopted the uniform evidence laws, and rely on their existing legislation.

Under the Uniform Evidence Acts:

1. Every person (regardless of age, race and gender) is competent to give evidence unless they do not have the capacity to understand a question about a fact or do not have the capacity to give an answer about a fact that is able to be understood and this incapacity is not able to be overcome.
2. The Uniform Evidence Acts expressly state that mental, intellectual or physical disability are examples of reasons that lead to a person having a lack of capacity to understand a question or give an answer.
3. A person incapable of giving evidence about one fact might be competent to give evidence about other facts.
4. A person who is competent to give evidence is not competent to give sworn evidence if they do not have the capacity to understand that they are under an obligation to give truthful evidence.
5. If a person is unable to give sworn evidence they may be competent to give unsworn evidence if the court has told the person that it is important to tell the truth.
6. Evidence given by a witness will not become inadmissible because that witness ceases to be competent of giving evidence.
7. The court is able to inform itself as it sees fit as to questions of competency including obtaining information from persons with specialised knowledge.

Other Evidence Acts

As a rule, the Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory presume that everyone is competent to give evidence. Tests of competency vary across the jurisdictions. In general, a person who does not understand the obligation of an oath or affirmation may give informal evidence if the court is satisfied the witness understands the importance of telling the truth.

Facilitating evidence for persons with a disability

The Uniform Evidence Acts

• The Acts give examples of how disabilities might be overcome by use of interpreters and by allowing adjustments to be made for the delivery of evidence by deaf or speech-impaired witnesses. These provisions were included to make it clear that the physical disabilities of a witness give rise only to practical problems of presentation and not to competence.
• Courts have discretion to have questions asked or evidence adduced "in any appropriate way" in circumstances where a witness cannot speak or cannot hear.
• Further examples of how disabilities might be overcome were not included in the Uniform Evidence Act on the basis that if the law was more prescriptive of the adjustments that could be made this might prevent alternative adjustments and in turn limit the types of incapacities that might be overcome.
• A judge may direct a witness to answer a question in a particular way such as using simple language or through non-verbal communication. This focuses on the manner and form of the questions to witnesses and their responses.
• Witnesses who cannot hear or speak 'adequately' may be questioned or give evidence by 'appropriate means'.
• Interpreters are allowed (with the exception of Tasmania).

Barriers and gaps

People with disabilities and people who work in the court system expressed considerable frustration to the Commission. The reasons for reasonable adjustments not being provided in court processes included:

• people with disabilities not being aware they were available
• support persons and interpreters were not booked
• lack of availability of support workers
• communication devices banned in court
• there was no help filling out forms or meeting other purely procedural requirements.

3) corrections:

Corrective services contribute to the whole-of-government priority, in all jurisdictions, to create safer communities through the administration of correctional sentences and orders. Objectives common to all jurisdictions are outlined below.

• Provide a safe, secure and humane custodial environment – Corrective services aim to protect the community through the effective management of prisoners commensurate with their needs and the risks they pose to the community.
• Provide an effective community corrections environment – Corrective services aim to protect the community through the effective management of offenders commensurate with their needs and the risks they pose to the community, and to provide advice services to courts and releasing authorities in the determination of orders and directions for offenders.
• Provide program interventions to reduce the risk of re-offending – Corrective services aim to reduce the risk of re-offending among prisoners and offenders by providing services and program interventions that address the causes of offending, maximise the chances of successful reintegration into the community, and encourage offenders to adopt a law-abiding way of life.

These objectives are to be met through the provision of services in an equitable and efficient manner.

Barriers and Gaps

After making their way through the difficult processes of investigation and court proceedings, during which their human rights may have been disrespected and denied, in custodial settings new barriers confront people with disabilities:

• Essential aids (for example hearing aids) are often removed and supports withdrawn as a form of punishment.
• Essential medication may be withheld.
• Inability to participate in programs due to disability and lack of supports or adjustments to programs.
• Indefinite detention on the basis of disability, without trial or being convicted of a crime.
• Inhuman and degrading treatment to manage or respond to disability.

Of these 3 the weakest link is polices.

To correct the flaws we

Police system should be improved more with correct approach to the victims, which in order results to the change in the criminals.