Ways in Which Power of the State Is Used To Victimized Individuals

Question: Explain Ways In Which Power Of The State Is Used To Victimized Individuals? Answer: Introduction Last three decades have noticed human rights conventions and declarations which have contributed towards formalization of the rights and associated process of protection of the individuals accused of illegal behavior. The related discussion to this concept has demonstrated developing concepts which includes the concept of victimization, collective and individual rights along with its link with criminal justice process. In this context it is mentionable here that the manner in which rights of individuals are protected is not restricted to international and national concern. In respect to Victoria, it has been noticed that increased acts and related threats to the lives of individuals are the major elements which restricts the individual rights of individuals. Thus, considering the above discussed aspect, the essay would highlight on the way in which increased anti-social behavior have lead to challenging rights of individuals with the help of discretionary power of the criminal justice system of Victoria like police force. Taking the scenario of Victoria into account, in regards to the states criminal justice system and victimization, it can be noticed that it began with banning notice provisions of Victoria. In this reference it is mentionable here that with Liquor Control Reform Amendment Act 2007 the first Victorian legislation which entitles police in terms of police-imposed prohibition of individuals came into action (Farmer, 2016). It act provides the residents of the state with prohibition in terms of defining public area which was previous for 24 hours. Under LCRA Act 2007 the Director of Liquor Licensing was empowered to declare an area which is designated in case violence associated with alcohol consumption or associated disorder occurs in the public place which is in proximity to the licensed premises of the area as per Section 147 (la) (Fenwick, 2009). It has been further mentioned in this context that declaring a designated area will come into action only if it is perceived that with the i mposition of banning noticed further occurrence of violence related to alcohol consumption in the area can be prevented with its help. Under the particular legislation the Victorian Police force were empowered to utilize on-the-spot discretionary powers with the help of which individuals can be banned from the designated area for a period of 24 hours which was later maximized by 72 hours. This expansion of the duration of time was made under Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2010. In this regards it can be mentioned here that on the part of police, banning notice can be implemented in case the police officer perceives that it is reasonable to be effective in restricting the associated individual in the incident from committing a particular offence as stated under Section 148B of LCRA Act 2007. The police also have the authority to execute ban if it is anticipated the anti-social behaviors or disorderly is about to happen. It is required to be noted here that, the need on the part of the officer to offer proof is not required for the purpose of reflecting upon the intention to perform an offence for recording any wit ness information (Newburn, 2012). The imposition of the banning notice sanction is done in a prompt manner, wherein there lacks any recourse in legal representation along with absence of any kind of capability to appeal its imposition. In case recipient prevents from providing their details to the requesting officer, financial penalty is imposable. The police officers are further entitled to use reasonable force to ascertain banned individuals to leave the designated area. As compared to other on-the-spot infringement penalties, in Victoria the process is much speeder in nature, wherein the opportunity to look for an independent review of the decision of police associated with banning notice is absent. In Victoria, the recipient is left out with the only option to appeal its effect related to their freedom of movement or perceived validity with the help of written notice to a police officer above the sergeants rank, who may differ or revoke a banning notice (Steiner et al., 2008). In this regard it can be mentioned here, strict liability offences is breached on the part of the banning notice in addition to functioning under reverse onus principles which includes penalties that is in the initial stage financial in nature. In case of its continuation, or incase the fine remains unpaid summary court proceeding can be initiated which have potential criminal consequences along with imprisonment associated with it. Another mentionable aspect of power of State is its parliament, which is a part of Victorias criminal justice proceeding which is used in victimization of people. In this context it is mentionable here that, it is essential to analyze the impact of compliance with Victorias Charter Act, all the proposed legislation which also includes the 27 Charter Act rights. In this context it is mentionable here that Section 7(2) of the Charter Act allows limitation on human rights (Victimsofcrime.vic.gov.au, 2007). However, the section of Charter Act also states that, required justification is needed to be provided which according to Section 28 of Charter Act 2006 is also required to be documented in a Statement of Compatibility. In both Victorian Houses of Parliament the Statement is tabled at the first reading of a Bill. In any case, if the Charter right is limited as per the proposed legislation, under Section 7(2) of Charter Act 2009, the limitation is required to be demonstrably justified. In an in-depth manner the aspect of compliance with the Charter and Hansard record of parliamentary debates has been analyzed in regards to JLA Act 2010 and LCRA Act 2007. With the compliance by the banning Bills, demonstrate a partial impact assessment. As of 2007 or 2010 Statement, no evidence was present for the purpose of providing with justification to the need of introducing banning notices or the manner in which limitation is acknowledged by the provisions to the Charter rights to freedom of movement as per Section 12 of Charter Act 2006, liberty and security as per Section 21 of the act, privacy and reputation Section 13 of the act. In wither Statement to the effect associated with banning provisions regarding the rights to fair hearing or the right associated with reviewing a sentence was considered (Austlii.edu.au, 2017). On the basis of incomplete and presumptions which cannot be continued in the Statements, the parliamentary debates associated with both the banning Bills were formulated. In the parliamentary debate, during this period, it has been observed that the need for public protection has been incorporated in the moral axiom of the primacy of the rights in context to the wider law abiding community that deserved protection from undesirable minority. Descriptors like that of troublemakers were in use across the parliament debates for the purpose of highlighting upon the undesirable in a manner which used the majority of Victorians. In this context it is mentionable here that Labor Minister Robinson reflected a prominent then/us distinction at the time he enquired Liberal members who were supporting an appeals right which was against banning notice in case they continue to provide support to criminals and thugs against Victorians who are law-abiding in nature (Donnelly, 2013). A need to ensure protections to those individuals who are honest law-abiding in against to those individuals who are anti-social in terms of their behavior was asserted on the part of Robi nson. It is mentionable here that, though parliament made claims regarding the effectiveness of banning notices in dealing with issues related to disorder in NTE, it failed in providing with any kind of benchmarking to its introduction (Reiner, 2010). Essentially, their do not exist any kind of research regarding the particular consequence, prevention of its effect. It can also be mentioned here that though it has been stated under Charter Act that it provides with equal protection to all the individuals in Victoria, in 2007 and 2010 it is noticed that on the part of the parliament it failed in a significant manner in meaningfully considering the impact of banning noticed on the rights of the rights of the recipients along with objective assessment of the need appropriateness and suitability of the legislative response. In spite of procedural shortcoming associated with the process, the political drive to implement and enhance banning noticed existing. The formulation of this provision wit hin the parliamentary discourse formulates upon rhetoric of fear and making it legal to ban as a valid response to the issues to crime (Debeljak, 2008). The individual rights associated with prospective banning recipients were subjected to the assumed greater good of the protection of the community which results in victimization of the law-abiding people of Victoria. Another aspect associated with power of state and victimization of Victorians is embedded in the aspect of security and protection of the community the result of which is change to the criminal processing which is an expanding perception associated with victimization. The present model of criminal process was extended on the part of Roach for the purpose of bringing individual victims associated with crimes to front (Mythen, Khan, 2010). The initiative towards pre-emptive control associated with perceived harm and risk integrates the potential victimization of the broader community. In the particular approach, legislative provisions and enhanced police powers are considered as justified as per the rhetoric of public safety and security. In this aspect it can be stated that underlying reforms under New Labor in the UK during the mid-1990s comprised of tough on crime perspective. With the help of fundamental changes these were typified to the criminal processing though pre-emptive and prohibitive provisions like police imposed dispersal orders and anti-social behavior orders (Crawford, 2009). Thus, in this context, it would be wrong to stated that restricting individuals rights in the broader interests of the community brings the positioning of the impacted individuals within the society. Hence, it is mentionable that, as combination of the above discussed aspect results in victimization of the individuals residing in Victoria. In order to prevent such occurrences, in Victoria, the governmental policy which restricts the rights of individuals is required to be supported with the help of empirical evidence in terms of its needs and impact. The expectation of the evidence-based policy development was made prominent in Victorian Government Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee report which was formalized with the help of Charter Act. The reason of the substantial and evidence of needs and impact to prevent the conflation associated with the process and the impact of the legislative and operational provinces. Furthermore, in order prevent such victimization, emphasizing on human rights plays an integral role (Legrand Bronitt, 2012). To get in depth of the matter, human rights is not essentially trumping the national security interests, in addition to it, collective security can co-exist with each other and not essentially impact one another adversely. Conclusion On the basis of the above made discussion, it can be stated that, taking UK New Labors tough on crime reforms in 1990s, the terror threat post 9/11, Victorias localized attempts in controlling alcohol related violence, in the scale of criminal law in Victoria emphasis is required to be given on balancing. References Austlii.edu.au. (2017).CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2006 - SECT 12Freedom of movement. [online] Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cohrara2006433/s12.html [Accessed 6 May 2017]. Crawford, A. (2009). Criminalizing sociability through anti-social behaviour legislation: dispersal powers, young people and the police.Youth Justice,9(1), 5-26. Debeljak, J. (2008). Balancing Rights in a Democracy: The Problems with Limitations and Overrides of Rights under the Victorian Character of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.Melb. UL Rev.,32, 422. Donnelly, J. (2013).Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press. Farmer, C. (2016). Upholding whose right? Discretionary police powers to punish, collective 'pre-victimisation and the dilution of individual rights.Australian New Zealand Journal of Criminology. Fenwick, H. (2009).Civil liberties and human rights. Routledge. Legrand, T., Bronitt, S. (2012). Policing to a different beat: Measuring police performance. InPolicing and Security in Practice(pp. 1-19). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Mythen, G., Khan, F. (2010). Futurity, Governance and the Terrorist Risk: Exploring the Impacts of Pre-emptive Modes of Regulation on Young Muslims in the UK.Retrieved May,15, 2015. Newburn, T. (Ed.). (2012).Handbook of policing. Routledge. Reiner, R. (2010).The politics of the police. Oxford University Press. Steiner, H. J., Alston, P., Goodman, R. (2008).International human rights in context: law, politics, morals: text and materials. Oxford University Press, USA. Victimsofcrime.vic.gov.au. (2007).Victims' Charter Act 2006 - Victims of Crime. [online] Available at: https://www.victimsofcrime.vic.gov.au/utility/for+professionals/service+standards/victims+charter+act+2006+-+%28pdf%29 [Accessed 6 May 2017].