Balancing between freedoms, rights and safety for all people is the dilemma encountered in any good government.<\/p>\n
Sometimes though, there are instances that shock people and sometimes cause a government to react quickly in the belief that they know what is best to preserve freedoms, rights and safety. Continuing from our earlier Criminal Law (Part 1) article<\/a>, the Queensland State Government introduced the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013<\/em> (\u201cthe Act<\/strong>\u201c),\u00a0intended to protect the public safety, without proper debate.<\/p>\n History has shown that when any time a government, no matter how well motivated, chooses to exercise supreme authority without proper debate or judicial court processes it has led to a slippery slope, where some groups have ended up persecuted.<\/p>\n A former Justice of the Supreme Court Richard Chesterman stated in The Courier-Mail a stunning example concerning loss of rights experienced by the new Act.\u00a0 \u201cThe new Act allows the Attorney-General to imprison an offender without scrutiny and, for the first 12 months, without evidence.\u00a0 If he thinks the case is \u201curgent\u201d he need not give the offender an opportunity to argue against his imprisonment.\u00a0 It is claimed that this law will apply only to the \u201cworst of the worst\u201d but the Act has no such limitation and no criteria to judge which of the many offenders presently supervised under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003<\/em> (\u201cDPSO Act<\/strong>\u201c) maybe imprisoned on the Attorney-General\u2019s declaration.\u00a0 He does not have to give reasons to justify his action, or to explain why he thought an offender should be removed from the jurisdiction of the court and the law.\u201d<\/p>\n This article discusses the importance of having our judicial system involved in the punishment of alleged offenders, or if they are offenders in determining a way towards rehabilitation.<\/p>\n \u201cThe whole legislation makes a mockery of the judicial system by dictating to judges what they must do in regards to sentencing.\u00a0 The judicial system is supposed to be based on the separation of powers \u2013 this undermines that whole doctrine.\u00a0 Judges will almost be superfluous.\u00a0 The Attorney-General will instead hold all the power as judge, jury and executioner.\u201d<\/p>\n Press articles regarding the courts substantiate this point:<\/p>\n \u201cThe legislation itself imposes harsh penalties \u2013 15 to 25 years (depending on the allegations) imprisonment with no parole eligibility or parole release date.\u00a0 An offender (if convicted) is to serve the whole of their sentence in actual custody.\u00a0 Again this undermines another fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system and the principals of sentencing, rehabilitation.<\/p>\n We should never forget we are a compassionate society, a society of human beings, and a democratic society where we look to rehabilitate those who have committed offences.\u00a0 We cannot just have an Attorney-General operating as a judge, jury and executioner, without a system which looks at extenuating circumstances.<\/p>\n Looking at this on a more simplistic level if there is no opportunity for rehabilitation and redemption for the offender, and they are treated harshly irrespective of crime it is of little wonder there are now physical threats (as published in the paper) going around.<\/p>\n Imprisoning a person for an extended period of time will undoubtedly punish them, but will also make it more difficult to reintegrate into the community upon their release.\u00a0 This reintegration period will also be done without the supervision of parole, which increases the likelihood that further offences will be committed.\u00a0 There is also the issue of institutionalisation which again makes it so much harder for a person to rehabilitate and be a contributing member of society.<\/p>\n Not all individuals who are members of bikie groups are murderers, extortionists and\/or drug dealers.\u00a0 In fact, often people join groups to belong, to have comradery, to have a family and\/or the ability to fit in and not be judged.\u00a0 Therefore, it is important to punish proportionately any crimes, not impose and\/or serve humiliating penalties (i.e. pink jumpsuits) for lesser offences.\u00a0\u00a0We need to appreciate the psychological reasons why anyone belongs to any group.<\/p>\n I urge all our politicians to take into account the psychological and other reasons for membership in any group and to not apply punishment for lengthy periods purely because of association.\u00a0 Targeting by offering severe penalties irrespective of offence type will potentially result in dreadful consequences for all parties involved.\u201d<\/p>\n Press articles to substantiate some of the points raised, include:<\/p>\n Any individual or group who worries that their freedoms, rights and safety might be at jeopardy, should obtain immediate legal advice from our experienced criminal lawyers<\/a> about how they move forward day-to-day without unnecessarily risking an incarceration penalty.<\/p>\n Our team have the experience and expertise to obtain the best possible outcome.<\/p>\n As one of our clients said “Invest in the best. Q&S<\/em>“.<\/p>\n Get the best representation. Contact Quinn & Scattini Lawyers on\u00a01800 999 529<\/a>, email\u00a0mail@rmold.newwebsite.live<\/a>, or submit an enquiry below.<\/p>\n\n
\n
How We Can Help<\/h3>\n
\u8054\u7cfb\u6211\u4eec<\/h3>\n