Can the presence of a charter of rights in a jurisdiction lead to improved protections for criminal offenders against laws that punish them harshly, or authorise or require the judiciary to do so? It is often assumed that human rights charters can, or even will, cause the rights of such unpopular minorities to be better protected than they otherwise would have been – but such claims are often not properly substantiated. In this unit, we will expose them to critical scrutiny. In doing so, we will compare certain judicial decisions in jurisdictions, such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Victoria, where a charter is in force, with those in Australian jurisdictions where no charter of rights has been enacted. What effect does, or can, the enactment of a charter have on judicial reasoning? Can charters cause the law to become less punitive than it otherwise would have been? Topics to be considered might include: the death penalty; corporal punishment; irreducible life sentences; mandatory sentencing; and preventive detention. Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the United States Supreme Court and the superior courts in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom will be closely analysed. And consideration will be given to this, vexed, question: even if charters of rights are, or can be, effective, are they desirable?
Unit details and rules
Academic unit | Law |
---|---|
Credit points | 6 |
Prerequisites
?
|
LAWS5003 and LAWS5007 |
Corequisites
?
|
None |
Prohibitions
?
|
LAWS3524 |
Assumed knowledge
?
|
None |
Available to study abroad and exchange students | Yes |
Teaching staff
Coordinator | Andrew Dyer, andrew.dyer@sydney.edu.au |
---|