Barriers Related to Disabled People
The criminal justice system of Australia is certainly conventional in nature. This subject became topic of debate in the capacity to attain justice. The branch of the court is faulty in achieving the target to get justice as per the rule of law. The existence of jury in the criminal cases and matters evolves their participations or lack of the treatment of females and susceptible person in the criminal justice. The rule of law describes that all the people must be treated equally like rich people or poor people, with or without fear citizen or migrant, men or women. By extension, there are some restrictions on the state to follow the laws or the principles of law. In this essay, the main barriers for disabled and indigenous people to get the justice in the courts of Australia by evaluating the features of the criminal justice system are discussed and examined.
The range of private issues and logical problems or challenges can influence the capacity of person with the incapacity or disability to take participation completely in the court procedures (Gorski, 2015). The main barriers or obstacles may include the barriers related to the communication or interaction, problem to access the essential help or support, difficulties in making the adjustments, difficulty related to participation in the system of justice, and cost related to legal presentation. The problem connected with providing directions to legal representative and ability to take participation in the lawsuit is significant barrier to be considered (Tarman, Baytak and Duman, 2015).
The fee related to the legal process such as court filing cost, copy of case file charges and the fees of transcription is main disadvantage to approaching the court by many person. The communication barrier is also an important factor to be considered at the time of visiting the barriers related to justice. There is complex procedure of court to file a case and get justice. The legal response for the filed case by the court is very slow (Saloner, et. al, 2016). The people cannot get the justice quickly by the court. The overburdened legal system is also a problem of the court. There are not so much facilities and advance technologies in the court to deliver the justice quickly and in the effective management. The legal fee is also not certain. The lawyers, advisors or consultants charge the fee on their own wishes. Sometimes, a common person cannot bear the expenses of the court and fees of the lawyers, consultants or advisors. The other problem is over-reliance on the nonprofit sector to state the problems. In the case of Eldridge v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 624, it was held by the court that the right of access to justice is not divisible, mutually dependent and consistent with human rights of persons with disabilities (Thompson, 2016).
Barriers Related to Children and Youngsters
The barriers related to justice for the children and youngsters are deficiency of expert legal services, no awareness or less awareness of the rights, no awareness about legal powers, dependence on adults to facilitate the access to services related to law, fear of not to be believed, fear of not taking seriously by providers of the service. Further, there are many lawyers, attorneys, or consultants who do not talk to children with interest (Piller, 2016). On the other hand, the problem for elders in accessing justice is their physical incapacity. They are not so able to go to the court on hearings, for other proceedings and consulting with the lawyers. They are depended on their children, relatives or any other person. They do not have self-confidence and faith in themselves to get the justice.
This is very difficult for the indigenous Australians to get justice in the court (Slater, et. al, 2014). Indigenous peoples have similar legal issues as non-indigenous people, and a number of exclusive ones as well, they do not revolve to the system of the law to solve them. This is so even where indigenous peoples live in community where court is voluntarily accessible. For indigenous Australians, the main issue is that the criminal justice system in Australia is an imposed and foreign system. In respect of society to admit the criminal justice system as piece of its life and its community, it should see the system and practice it as being a affirmative influence working for aboriginal people. In Australia, the indigenous peoples have a complex relationship with criminal justice system. The indigenous Australians are over-represented in supervision and also over-represented as sufferers of crime. The problem arises between indigenous peoples and the police and there are additional difficulties which arise when indigenous criminals present in the courts and are sentenced (Tshibambe, 2016).
The reasons include long-term disbelieve of the legal system, long procedure of the system related to law and its services, lack of awareness related to the culture, sensitivity and sympathy among the providers of legal service, deficiency of services for indigenous people and fear in taking the legal services. There are very less indigenous people in organisations that render services related to law. There are few services available for indigenous females and child.
In the recent time, the condition concerning indigenous people and the justice system has declined rather than developed. The reason is that aboriginal distance from criminal justice system is not just an environmental incident, it is also a intellectual. This is due to the unclear language of the court, even to a person for whom English is considered as primary language. The theoretical problems are compounded by this matter that courts and advocates do not have equivalent in indigenous community. The Peace has not been accommodated easily by an adversarial and adjudicative system (Ratts, 2016).
Barriers Related to Elders
Further, it is necessarily required to accommodate and acknowledge for the large numbers of people with different disabilities who are confined as well. For decades, the issues about criminal justice have made focus on race and poverty alone. However, the issues miss the lens of what happens to individuals with disabilities whose family do not have the sources to make sure that they have accurate disability signs, IEPs and accommodation. There are several elements which contribute to the over-representation of people with learning disabilities in the criminal justice system. The major difficulties are poor life conditions, lower rates of education, less chances of employment, poverty, lower social background, lower financial status, lack of help and social separation than the common population. The people of colour and others from susceptible populations are mainly at risk due to overlapping and compounding effects of bigotry, cabalism and other forms of discrimination. The barriers for disabled people involve insufficient details, improper guidance, inadequate sources, unapproachable architectural design, unreachable data and ineffective communication procedures (Kohli and Pizarro, 2016).
When people with a disability are in the system, they face significant difficulties involving access to advice, the lack of facilities, complex laws and regulations, systematic abuse and private confinement. Many disabled people are abused behind bars. For an example, the blind people or deaf people are kept in private as accommodation for the years. But it may cause them to have problems related to mental health. Failure to sufficiently and properly deal with these problems of disability increases the cycle of failure, recidivism and crime. The reform of criminal justice will not accomplished unless and until disability is specified at all levels of the criminal justice system from premature involvement to re-entry and reintegration (Mika and Zehr, 2017).
The function of legal assistance means test rule was considered to be a main element in denying access to legal help for the person of low incomes who cannot otherwise manage the services of a private lawyer or attorney or the consultant. The people on low incomes were seen as deprived in respect of the stage of legal assistance they can access, when conflict to litigants with effectively various resources (Ballan, et. al, 2014)
The state is required to take the actions to solve the problem in all jurisdictions. The states are careful about making one-sided or independent action so there are solid reasons to offer a compulsory treaty as a foundation for early collective movement and union of norms (Hooks and Smith, 2015). Treaty should be used to eliminate the barriers related to jurisdiction. The proper framework should be created for the jurisdiction. The treaty may reduce the probability of long term jurisdictional battle, making sure that cases will carry to trial of substantive issues more rapidly. The treaty should be used to eliminate the legal barriers to accountability of company and to put on companies a duty of care in mostly all conditions applicable to the corporation cases of human rights. The holding corporations do not complete the responsibilities of Subsidiaries Company in current company law regime. This creates a thoughtful legal obstruction causing rejection of access to solution in corporate cases of the human rights. The treaty may make a method or system for making a parent corporation responsible for the conduct of subsidiary, allowing the sufferers to practise compensation from the holding company if the local corporation was not able to fulfil the duties or responsibilities. A duty of care may be restricted to the subsidiaries of company or applied more usually during the supply chain (Amartya, 2017).
Barriers Related to Indigenous Australians
The criminal law in various nations is not sufficiently framed to handle with companies as victims, however illustrations of modern strategies do exist. In this situation, the treaty may help move all systems of law to the essential criminal law situation for victims of company. The criminal confidence and sentencing of victims may render ethical management for the serious business of the offenders related to the abuse of human rights and also public identification that harm has been imposed. Furthermore penalty, if set at a proper scale, may serve as the proper restriction (Howson, et. al, 2017).
It is required that in respect of stating these barriers, the Australian jurisdiction should improve the strategy related to disability Justice and integrating the following essential set of principles and activities-
A proper communication- communication is essential to personal sovereignty and decision-making. According to disability justice strategy, an effective and proper communication should be secured.
Early involvement and alteration- early involvement and alteration in the proper program may both increase the presence of person with incapacities and encourage the interests of justice.
Enhanced capacity related to service- enhanced service capacity and assistance must be properly resourced.
The proper training- the proper training must specify the powers of people with incapacities and avoidance of and proper answers to violence and exploitation, involving violence based on gender.
Increased responsibility and observing- Person with disabilities involving disabled children are accessed and actively involved as same members in the progress, application and observing procedures, policies, programs and legislature to advance the access to impartiality or fairness.
Good policies and structures -Particular measures to state the connection of incapacity and gender must be accepted in legislature, procedure and programs to get proper knowledge and answers by service providers (Allen, 2014).
As per the above analysis, it can be concluded that access to justice is very important element of the rule of law. An individual will be able to access the court and permissible the procedures or the law cannot implement the rights, powers and duties of the people. The access to justice is recognised very significant problem or challenge in the Australia. However, there are many barriers for the legal assistance and the legal process. There is presently a great desire for proper responsibility and duty of the corporate businesses for their difficult and unfavourable influences of human rights, and nowhere was this more noticeable than in procedure leading up to the acceptation of the UNGPs and treaties. It is found from the above discussion that the UNGPs and the treaty must be considered as corresponding approaches for attaining the similar targets. In this way, it is significant to remind ourselves that these obstacles continue to present despite of both incomplete efforts to eliminate barriers and the better objective of consultants, regulators, advisors, advocates and other legal members. It is required to consider the issues of indigenous and disabled people timely to know new solutions of removal of barriers of justice.
References
Allen, A. L. (2014) Veiled Women in the American Courtroom: Is the Niqab a Barrier to Justice?. In The rule of law and the rule of god, 56(1), pp. 189-205.
Amartya, S.E. N. (2017) What do we want from a theory of justice?. In Theories of Justice , 39(9), pp. 27-50.
Ballan, M.S., Freyer, M.B., Marti, C.N., Perkel, J., Webb, K. A. and Romanelli, M. (2014) Looking beyond prevalence: A demographic profile of survivors of intimate partner violence with disabilities. Journal of interpersonal violence, 29(17), pp.3167-3179.
Gorski, P. C. (2015) Relieving burnout and the “Martyr Syndrome” among social justice education activists: the implications and effects of mindfulness. The Urban Review, 47(4), pp.696-716.
Hooks, A.E., and Smith, R. A. (2015)Asian Americans and Language as a Barrier to Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Howson, J.M., Zhao, W., Barnes, D.R., Ho, W.K., Young, R., Paul, D.S., Waite, L.L., Freitag, D.F., Fauman, E.B., Salfati, E.L. and Sun, B. B.(2017) Fifteen new risk loci for coronary artery disease highlight arterial-wall-specific mechanisms. Nature genetics, 49(7), p.1113.
Kohli, R. and Pizarro, M. (2016) Fighting to educate our own: Teachers of color, relational accountability, and the struggle for racial justice. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(1), pp.72-84.
Mika, H. and Zehr, H. (2017) Fundamental concepts of restorative justice. In Restorative Justice, 38(4), pp. 73-81.
Piller, I. (2016) Linguistic diversity and social justice: An introduction to applied sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ratts, M.J., Singh, A.A., Nassar?McMillan, S., Butler, S.K. and McCullough, J. R. (2016) Multicultural and social justice counseling competencies: Guidelines for the counseling profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 44(1), pp.28-48.
Saloner, B., Bandara, S.N., McGinty, E.E. and Barry, C. L.(2016) Justice-involved adults with substance use disorders: coverage increased but rates of treatment did not in 2014. Health Affairs, 35(6), pp.1058-1066.
Slater, C., Potter, I., Torres, N. and Briceno, F.(2014) Understanding social justice leadership: An international exploration of the perspectives of two school leaders in Costa Rica and England. Management in Education, 28(3), pp.110-115.
Tarman, B., Baytak, A., and Duman, H.(2015) Teachers’ views on an ICT reform in education for social justice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(4), pp.865-874.
Thompson, N.(2016) Anti-discriminatory practice: Equality, diversity and social justice. New Zeland: Macmillan International Higher Education.
Tshibambe, P.(2016) Great Steps Forward Through Education: From the Congo: Learning a New Language, New Customs: Great Challenge, No Barrier. Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, 49(1), p.12.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
