Sexuality in a criminal justice curriculum : a study of student conceptualisations of gay identity

Heteronormative discourses provide the most common lens through which sexuality is understood within university curricula. This means that sexuality is discussed in terms of categories of identity, with heterosexuality accorded primacy while all 'others' are indeed 'othered'. This article draws on research carried out by the authors in a core first year university ethics class, in which a fictional text was introduced with the intention of unpacking these discourses. An ethnographic study was undertaken where both students and teachers engaged in discussions over, and personal written reflections on, the textual content. In reporting the results of that study this article uses a post-structural framework to identify how classroom and textual discourses might be used to break down socially constructed categories of sexuality and students' conceptualisations of non-heterosexual behaviour. It was found that engaging in discussion in the context of the fictional text allowed some students to begin to recognise their own heteronormative views and engage in an informed critique of them.

Termination of a minor’s pregnancy : critical issues for consent and the criminal law

The recent Supreme Court decision of Queensland v B [2008] 2 Qd R 562 has significant implications for the law that governs consent and abortions. The judgment purports to extend the ratio of Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services (NT) v JWB and SMB (1991) 175 CLR 218 (Marion’s Case) and impose a requirement of court approval for terminations of pregnancy for minors who are not Gillick-competent. This article argues against the imposition of this requirement on the ground that such an approach is an unjustifiable extension of the reasoning in Marion’s Case. The decision, which is the first judicial consideration in Queensland of the position of medical terminations, also reveals systemic problems with the criminal law in that State. In concluding that the traditional legal excuse for abortions will not apply to those which are performed medically, Queensland v B provides further support for calls to reform this area of law.

The Criminal Codes : Commentary and Materials

This edition has been substantially revised to increase overall clarity and to ensure a balanced examination of the criminal law in the 'Code' states, Queensland and Western Australia. The work has been brought up-to-date in all areas and provides valuable comment on the recent wide-reaching reforms to the law of homicide in Western Australia. Significant developments in both states discussed in this edition include: The abolition of wilful murder and infanticide, and the new definition of murder (WA); The introduction of the new offence of unlawful assault causing death (WA); The abolition of provocation to murder (WA), and whether this excuse still has a part to play (Qld); The reformulation of the excuse of self-defence, and the introduction of excessive self-defence (WA); The creation of offences for drink spiking (Qld and WA); and Current and proposed sentencing considerations (Qld and WA). Fundamental principles of the criminal law are illustrated throughout the book by selected extracts from the Codes and case law, while additional materials foster critical reflection on the law and the need for reform.

Butterworths Questions and Answers : Criminal Law in Queensland and Western Australia

Criminal Law in Queensland and Western Australia is a new title in the Butterworths Questions and Answers (BQA) series, focusing on the criminal law in the main code states – Queensland and WA.

Contemporary examples where doctors are not immune from non-fatal offences against a person

While it is uncontested that the medical profession makes a valuable contribution to society, doctors should not always be beyond the reach of the criminal law and they should not automatically be treated as God. Doctors should act reasonably and be conscious of their position of trust. In this sense, the notion of “doctors” is construed broadly to include a range of health care professionals such as podiatrists, radiographers, surgeons and general practitioners. This paper will explore contemporary Australian examples where doctors have acted inappropriately and been convicted of non-fatal offences against the person. The physical invasiveness involved in these scenarios varies significantly. In one example, a doctor penetrates a patient’s private body part with a probe for their own sexual gratification, and in another, a doctor covertly visually records a naked patient. The examples will be connected to the theories underpinning criminalisation, particularly social welfare and individual autonomy, with a view to framing guidelines on when doctors should not be immune from non-fatal offences against a person, and thus where the criminal law should respond.

Are there any true adult-onset offenders?

In the extant literature, adult-onset offending has usually been identified using official sources. It is possible, however, that many of the individuals identified would have had unofficial histories of prior offending. To investigate this issue, the men from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD) were examined. The CSDD is a prospective longitudinal study of men from inner-city London, followed from age 8 to age 48. Onset of offending was identified using official records and then the self-reported offending of the adult-onset offender group (with a first conviction at age 21 or later) was compared to others. All the adult-onset offenders self-reported some previous offending in childhood and adolescence but most of this offending was not sufficiently frequent or serious to lead to a conviction in practice. About one-third of adult-onset offenders were considered to be self-reported delinquents who were realistically in danger of being convicted because of the frequency of their offending. For some, the adjudication by the criminal justice system was simply the first time that their ongoing pattern of offending had been detected. Their lack of detection was because the types of offences they were committing had lower detection rates.

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment : criminal responsibility for established medical practice?

The law recognises the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment even if this will lead to death. Guardianship and other legislation also facilitates the making of decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment in certain circumstances. Despite this apparent endorsement that such decisions can be lawful, doubts have been raised in Queensland about whether decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment would contravene the criminal law, and particularly the duty imposed by the Criminal Code (Qld) to provide the “necessaries of life”. This article considers this tension in the law and examines various arguments that might allow for such decisions to be made lawfully. It ultimately concludes, however, that criminal responsibility may still arise and so reform is needed.

Narratives of mitigation : sentencing Indigenous criminal defendants in South Australia’s Higher Courts

In their statistical analyses of higher court sentencing in South Australia, Jeffries and Bond (2009) found evidence that Indigenous offenders were treated more leniently than non-Indigenous offenders, when they appeared before the court under similar numerical circumstances. Using a sample of narratives for criminal defendants convicted in South Australia’s higher courts, the current article extends Jeffries and Bond’s (2009) prior statistical work by drawing on the ‘focal concerns’ approach to establish whether, and in what ways, Indigeneity comes to exert a mitigating influence over sentencing. Results show that the sentencing stories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders differed in ways that may have reduced assessments of blameworthiness and risk for Indigenous defendants. In addition, judges highlighted a number of Indigenous-specific constraints that potentially could result in imprisonment being construed as an overly harsh and costly sentence for Indigenous offenders.

An examination of the sentencing remarks of Indigenous and non-Indigenous criminal defendants in South Australia’s Higher Courts

Recent Australian research on Indigenous sentencing primarily explores whether disparities in sentencing outcomes exist. Little is known about how judges perceive or refer to Indigenous defendants and their histories, and how they interpret the circumstances of Indigenous defendants in justifying their sentencing decisions. Drawing on the ‘focal concerns’ approach, this study presents a narrative analysis of a sample of judges’ sentencing remarks for Indigenous and non-Indigenous criminal defendants convicted in South Australia’s Higher Courts. The analysis found that the sentencing stories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders differed in ways that possibly reduced assessments of blameworthiness and risk for Indigenous defendants.