Understanding Local Variation

  • Uncategorized

1

SENTENCING OF ABORIGINAL AND NON-ABORIGINAL

UnderstandingLocal Variation

Aboriginaloffenders in Canada, consist of 47 % of the Prairie Region. Theoffender’s rates were found to have rapidly increased between the2010 and 2013. As a result, of increase in offending rates, theaboriginal and non-aboriginal youth of Canada face intricate andrelentless issues and it has proved difficult to identify which oneis more severe than all other. Some of the issues they save includepoor health care, poor quality of education, poor living conditions,unemployment, poor income, rapid incarceration, mortality, andsuicide. The incarceration of the aboriginal is based on issueslike racism, drug use, and cultural prejudice (Boyce, Cotter, andPerrault, 2014).

Whendoing a sentence, imprisonment is usually the last resort of thepunishment in the Australian Jurisdictions. When considering tosentence aboriginal and non-aboriginal youth. There wereapproximately 1,323 Aboriginal offenders were sentenced to a fullterm imprisonment in 1999 while another 1,100 were sentenced forabout six months or even less. On average most of the aboriginaloffenders were imprisoned for between 4 and five months. Thecommission gave a rule that before sentences are put across, themagistrate should verify every decision to sentence people. Thecompatibility of compulsory sentencing regulations was highly doubtedby the UN committee because they did not seem to go hand in hand withthe Australian legal rights for humans. Aboriginal committees raisedthe same issue on compatibility and even reached to the extent wherethe federal government was called upon to do interventions. Afterfurther investigation, the Australian Senate discovered that therewas a breach of the rights of the children, which in turn led to therecommendation of the Commonwealth dominate youth. However, the primemister insisted on coming up with a compromise to make mandatorysentencing for only juveniles who are between 17 and 18 years of age.The idea of compromising was not taken up well by the northernterritory law society because confessing was an act of compromisingreasonable principles, for instance, the act of conjecture ofinnocence.

Thegeneral principals of sentencing instigated that, the offense shouldbe clearly established because the magnitude of the offense is whatis used to determine which sentence is given to the lawbreaker. TheAustralian law later recommended that there should be a consistentmethod of giving sentences to ensure that they are fair. According tothe Commonwealth regulations for sentencing, the nature of sentencethat is given to an individual depends on several factors andcultural background is one of them, this is the factors that help inacquiring a more rational sentence that is free and fair. Some of thefactors that the legislative courts consider relevant aspects toconsider in order to come up with a sentence are the type of themisdemeanor done the type of the lawbreaker what the responsesto the charges accused were possible outcome of the crime andauthorization and finally the verdict executed on a co-offender.Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people are both obligated to protectthe sanction of criminal law. For every case that comes up, theprinciples implemented are the same. However, the courts areobligated to take into consideration principles, which give all thetangible facts, which exist (Boyce, Cotter, and Perrault, 2014)

.

Before a sentence is put across, the registration has the mandate oflooking at the effects of the sentence on the community, which thecriminal comes from, and the effect to the criminal himself. Forexample, women and children are considered to be venerable andtherefore, in a situation where the woman is the one who is facing asentence, the law will have to look on that. On the other hand, thelaw looks at the effect of the community because for instance if theperson is being sentenced the breadwinner of the whole extendedfamily, it is going to be tricky. In this case, the dependencies ofthe criminal will determine the magnitude of the sentence. Specialdeliberations could also arise if the Aboriginal person has a mentalproblem. This would mean that the sentence should be consideredbecause it is not possible to get the required treatment in thecells. The Commission has come up with laws, which stand for therights of the individuals with an Intellectual Disability and theCriminal Fairness Structure. It also contains a complete package ofreforms to aid in the same (Boyce, Cotter, and Perrault, 2014)

Conclusion

Thereis sufficient common law that supports the Aboriginal customary law.The Australian law insists that justice must be given under allcircumstances. The governments across Australia have always involvedthe community when coming up with regulations concerning theAboriginal law. However, the method through which the Youth CriminalJustice Act is controlled, containing the types of programs willdiffer from one authority to another. Community involvement insentencing should be intensive because most this is the best way thegovernment can get to know the background of the criminal. Inconclusion, based on all the listed factors, most of the people weresentenced to less than six months while a slight percentage has beencondemned need more than six months.

Reference

Boyce,J., A. Cotter and S. Perrault. 2014. “Police-reported crimestatistics in Canada, 2013.” Juristat. Statistics CanadaCatalogue no. 85-002-X.