Dangerous Offenders Legislation Essay examples -- essays research pape

The new Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act (2003) In Queensland permits prisoners to be kept in prison beyond their release date where a court finds that there is a ‘high degree of probability’ that they represent a ‘serious danger to the community’. Other jurisdictions have enacted similar legislation to restrict the release of prisoners assessed to be dangerous. Do you think that dangerousness legislation of this sort is justified or unjustified? Several states across the Country have enacted or attempted to enact legislation which can enable detention of a prisoner past his/her release date. This type of legislation’s general purpose is to provide a mechanism whereby prisoners who, if released pose an unacceptable risk of committing further serious offences, may be detained where it is deemed appropriate to do so for the protection of the community (Field, 2003). The most recent of these being the Queensland Government’s passing of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003. Similar laws were introduced in New South Wales in 1994, however they were ultimately ruled invalid by the High Court. Prior to this in 1991 Victoria enacted legislation known as the Community Protection Act 1990, which allowed for the continued detention of one prisoner known as Garry David. Whilst this Act applied to no one else the Victorian Government attempted to broaden the legislation with Draft Bill proposals which ultimate ly lapse in the face of wide ranging criticism from lawyer, psychiatrists and academics. (Greig 1995) This type of legislation has been devised to allow for the detention of people based upon assessments of risk of re-offending, this essay will explore the concerns with these practices. This essay further aims to explore the moral and practical implications of such sentencing provisions and the impact it has on the whole Justice System. The writer will also address the conflicting goals of Corrections and the purpose and impact of indefinite sentencing while exploring the justifications against such legislation. This essay also aims to show that even though we may feel disgust for these types of offences we must remember the fundamentals of the Criminal Law system and understand that people are entitled to equality and fairness in the eyes of the law. It has been suggested that this type of legislation has largely been introduced to fi... ...on. However the subjective nature of detaining someone after their release date is further complicated by the fact that there is no accurate basis for determining which offenders are likely to re-offend and which ones are not (Wortley and Smallbone, 2003). Is this type of legislation justified? In simple terms no. It removes basic human rights such as the Common Law belief of innocent until proven guilty, it also takes away the adversarial nature of our justice system and replaces it with the possibility of arbitrary imprisonment (NSW Law Commission, 2004). This type of legislation also fails to adequately balance the goals of Imprisonment instead focuses on the punitive goals and contradicts the goal of rehabilitation. People detained under this legislation can be forgiven for arguing that they are being punished over and over again for their crimes whilst some offenders get to serve their time and move on with their lives. Unfortunately the very principle of the legislation is to detain offenders until they are no longer a risk, when in reality the risk of re-offending could escalate because of the powerful feeling of injustice created by the legislation. WORD COUNT: 2367

Dignity and Freedom: Immanuel Kant

Kant’s theories vary greatly with that of other philosophers. He was a retributivist who believed that it is alright to punish the wrongdoers as long as such punishment is tantamount or equivalent to the weight of the crime that was done. Punishment without proper reasons or justifications, such as jailing someone for petty theft is (according to the Kant) unjust. He spoke about punishment on the critique of practical reasons which is in contrast with Jeremy Bentham’s theory. Jeremy Bentham was a utilitarian theorist who considers punishment as evil (Robert, 2000).While Bentham supports rehabilitation efforts in prisons Kant found such efforts immoral. Kant further argued that such actions acted against ones personal rational choices. Kant rejects manipulation of people even when the causes and reasons are just. He believes that people should be allowed to reason for themselves and their decisions should be respected. Kant criticized other theories on the grounds that t hey were only hypothetical and could not be applicable in the real world.Some theories argue that the greater good ought to be considered when acting, nevertheless, such theory would be irrelevant to someone whose interest is contrary to the maintenance of the common good. Hypothetical moral systems should not be used to determine the moral action since they are very subjective. He rejected Hume’s theory on the ideal theory of the mind. To Kant, analytical methods should not be used to explain what is physically evident. He believes that synthetic reasoning involves relating concepts that are not directly related to the subject concept. A prior knowledge can be used in the metaphysics study. (Bayne, 2000)Kant criticizes the utilitarian view regarding happiness as the highest goal. He opposes this view as it created loopholes in arguing that people simply wants to achieve happiness. Happiness as far as Kant is concerned is a product of emotion. Following Kant’s argument s, acknowledging happiness as man’s final goal would be like ignoring the fact that human beings are rational and can choose or plan and anticipate their future. Kant portrays the categorical imperative approach where he sees all human beings as occupants of a special place in creation. People have different needs which ought to be satisfied using certain means.He uses the term maxim to refer to intentions or principle of action. Human beings should not act in a way that portrays other people simply as means to an end but as an end to itself. In working to attain the maxim people should not use others as means. People used should benefit from the arrangement and their consent should be sought. To him, duties should be beneficial to people used in the process of attaining the goals. I agree with Kant’s theory as all people should be treated with equality and with respect. There are two types of imperatives. The hypothetical imperative tells what we ought to do in order to achieve a goal.The categorical imperative leads to absoluteness since human beings are rational and can govern their actions. People should only act on maxims that can become ‘universal law’. To Kant, there are universal moral laws that are logically necessary. People’s actions should therefore be performed according to the acceptable universal laws of morality. Individuals should act according to the same moral laws (Robert, 2000). All people should be treated with moral respect. Deception should not be considered even when being applied for wrongdoers. To Kant, duties can be perfect or imperfect.Imperfect duties entail working to develop our talents since they are given to us for a purpose while perfect duties entail a duty to others. Kant rejected the ethical force brought about by tradition and coined the modern idea of autonomy. Autonomy is simply the capability of an individual to act on behalf of his own. Autonomy of the will is the ability of the will to be a will in itself while the will refers to the means by which a maxim can become a universal law. This lies in contrast with the notion of Heteronomy which is acting after observing the various consequences that an action has produced.He brought about the idea of centrality of rational thought. Each person can make free and autonomous choices and they are compelled by rationality and the categorical imperative in their decisions. Adherence to categorical imperative provides for autonomous ethical choice since people make their decisions rationally. In pursuit for various maxims all parties involved benefit from the arrangement (Collins, 2000). To Kant, objects do not have value but man gives them value through their rational goals and desires. Human beings have an intrinsic worth or dignity.They should therefore act in good will out of a sense of duty and use the categorical imperative. What we give to society comes back to us and we ought not to harm others but work in ensurin g that they benefit from out actions. I agree with the ideas presented by Kant, provided the way in which he had defended the rationality of people. I also agree that there are categorical imperative laws or universal maxims which comprise our ethical standards. Nevertheless, I could not agree that people are ought to be treated as ends in themselves, for there are hard cases wherein one must treat someone as a means to an end.For instance, if the only way for a person to survive is to get an organ from someone who is already dying, wouldn’t it be rational to take the organ and use it for the person’s benefit since its real owner is already dying. Thus, there might be cases wherein Kant’s theory may fail or may not be of any use. Another famous example is the situation that involves lying. It is a universal maxim for Kant that people must not tell lies. However, if there is a killer at the lobby looking for a certain person, whom by chance you know where, was hi ding; would it still be wrong to tell a lie (Bass).

An Introduction to Adult Learning