Martin Bryant example essay topic

Introduction Crime is an act or omission that harms individuals and ultimately society as a whole; for which punishments are determined by the law, and is enforced by the state. The objective of criminal law is to prevent certain behaviour that society feels is harmful, potentially harmful, unacceptable or undesirable. In relation to Port Arthur, this shocking and disgraceful conduct has been regarded as the worst ever crime committed on Australian territory. The sole perpetrator, Martin Bryant aged 29, established a murderous plan through contemplation and active preparation; deliberately killed two people against whom he had a personal conflict, then embarked on a trail of devastation which claimed the lives of a further 33 other human beings who were total strangers to him, simultaneously causing serious injury, distress and grief to literally thousands more. The repercussions of these crimes have been worldwide; followed by the effect on the extended community: the shock and disbelief that criminal conduct of this scale could actually occur within Australia. In order to analyse this particular crime in detail, we can divide it into 5 distinct stages: The Type of crime - including a brief description of the occurrence, the elements of the crime and various details that progressively instigated the Actus Reus.

The Arrest and Bail procedure, including the active role of police at the scene, the use of discretion, the question of bail, police interrogations, charges laid and the committal hearing. The Trial, Penalty / Sentencing including various aspects that affected the severity of the sentence; and the Evaluation of the effectiveness of the law in relation to this case. Type of Crime Brief Summary of Events / Background Information The Actus Reus was performed in a sequence: Martin Bryant killed a Mr. & Mrs. Larcer in their home (whom he had a personal conflict with), he then traveled 6 km south to the Port Arthur Historic Site. Following an argument with the parking attendant, Martin entered the Broad Arrow Cafe and consumed his final lunch as a common member of society. At 1.30 pm he opened fire with a COLT M 16 CAR. 223 machine gun, immediately killing 20 and wounding another 12 people in a period of less than 90 seconds, he then left the Cafe shooting at people randomly, subsequently killing and injuring more.

He then drove his yellow Volvo out of the site shooting people along the way, abandoned his car and transferred some of the firearms and ammunition to a BMW that belonged to one of his victims. He then stopped at a service station nearby shooting a further 4 people; Martin acquired a hostage and forced him into the boot of the BMW; he then progressed at high speeds 6 km north to Seascape where he stopped and shot at various cars on the highway. He then took his hostage inside the Seascape Cottage and set fire to the BMW. Immediately police arrived at the scene, Special Operations Group police (SOG) arrived; upon arrival the police positioned themselves into appropriate places and commenced negotiations with Bryant over the phone throughout the night. At 7.45 am the following morning, Martin Bryant set fire to the Seascape cottage and attempted to escape; however he miserably failed and was subsequently arrested and apprehended by the police at the scene. The Type of Crime - The Port Arthur massacre is a combination of various crimes, however the majority of crimes committed are Offences Against Persons.

The media often provide an uneven coverage of crime which tends to imply that crimes against persons are the most common form of crime; however these types of crimes only make up a very small percentage of the total crime rate (approx 4-5%). In relation to the Port Arthur massacre the offences against persons can be further divided into homicide and assault. Homicide is the unlawful killing of one person by another; unlawful homicide is evident in this situation through the process of murder. Murder is a statutory offence which is defined as the killing of one person by another with 'malice aforethought'. Malice aforethought is the mental component of murder, and may be apparent in various means (this will be discussed in detail later on). For Martin Bryant to be charged with murder it must have involved the one of the following: a deliberate act to kill, a deliberate act to cause serious harm during which a death occurs, or an act done with 'a reckless indifference to life' (recognition of the probability of death).

Throughout the series of crimes executed by Martin Bryant, other crimes were simultaneously committed. This includes economic offences such as Larceny / Robbery; Larceny is obtaining a property / possession that is owned by someone else and 'carrying it away' with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of that property. Robbery is the taking of someone's property, from the person or in their vicinity, with the use of physical force / violence or the threat of violence. Martin Bryant also committed the offence of Arson.

Arson is the process of lighting fire to a piece of property without approval / permission. For Martin Bryant to be lawfully convicted of a criminal offence, the prosecution must prove that he: Intended to commit the crime (Mens Rea), performed the actual offence (Actus Reus) and performed the act that caused the offence (causation). The Mens Rea evident in this situation can be divided into two distinct stages: directly and indirectly. Directly, the mens rea was proved through Martin Bryant's specific intention to kill Mr. and Mrs. Larcer, derived from a personal conflict relating to a financial circumstance. The intention was also evident through the fact that he acquired high powered weapons, a very large supply of ammunition, accessories such as a sports bag to conceal the weapons, a hunting knife, two sets of handcuffs and a rope; in addition he carried large quantities of petrol in containers, fire starters and a cigarette lighter. If he did not intend to commit the crime, then he would not have carried such weapons of mass destruction.

The mens rea is also evident indirectly - Martin Bryant developed the mens rea progressively; over an extremely long period of time which resulted in feelings of soullessness, insensitivity, repression and powerlessness. Therefore this crime can be viewed as an act of 'revenge' for his previous emotional situations that were instigated by various circumstances. This includes the physical abuse tolerated as a child, consistently perceived as a social outcast throughout his adolescence, death of his natural father and 'virtual' mother prior to the event; termination of a relationship and a host of other factors. These factors no doubtedly led to the feelings of loneliness, absence, isolation and alienation, which progressively instigated the inability to express himself in any other way and ultimately performed the Actus Reus. (Actus Reus discussed above). Arrest and Bail Procedure Due to the severity of the situation which required substantial police intervention; police not only arrived immediately to Martin Bryant's location, but various police networks from around Australia (NSW and Victoria) were utilised.

Numerous attempts to negotiate with Martin Bryant throughout the night consistently failed; however he was arrested during his pathetic / unsuccessful attempt to escape. He endeavored to establish a diversion by setting the Seascape Cottage on fire. After being apprehended by police, Martin was conveyed to Rishon Hospital Prison. (Note: Initially he denied the whole thing). On the 1st of May 1996 Martin was formally charged during a bedside court hearing before Magistrate Peter Dixon for 73 different indictments, which includes: Thirty-five counts of murder, twenty counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm, ten counts of attempted murder, four counts of aggravated assault and two counts of arson. Bryant was represented by a Legal Aid lawyer, Debra Rigby.

Once Martin was charged with these offences, his fingerprint and photograph were taken. He was not granted bail and was subsequently remanded in custody. On the 22nd May 1996, a committal hearing was heard in the local court (in Tasmania known as the 'Magistrates court' or the 'Court of petty sessions') before Magistrate Michael Hill; it was conducted via teleconferencing (video) as Bryant was considered too injured to appear. The Crown prosecutor on the day was Mr. Nick Perks; the defence lawyer was Mr. Phillip Zeeman of the firm, 'Guns on, Pickard and Hann'. Bryant initially pleaded not guilty (however this will be discussed in detail in the next section). Magistrate Michael Hill found that there was sufficient evidence (a Prima Facie) to convict Martin Bryant, therefore the matter was eligible to be heard in a higher court; the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The Trial Initially, Martin Bryant pleaded not guilty to most of the charges, however after various confrontations with his legal representation and police, he eventually admitted to all of the charges. Martin Bryant's change of plea was mainly evident due to the proportion of evidence that was outweighed by the factors militating against him. His change of plea saved considerable distress, inconvenience and cost to those who would have been called as witnesses, to the victims and to community at large by the prolongation of the proceedings. Note: Throughout the majority of interrogations and the several hearings held so far, Martin Bryant's behaviour was highly depraved and unethical, he consistently laughed and made ridiculous comments, which ultimately aggravated the situation even more. Considering the plea is Guilty, hence therefore there was no trial by jury; he went straight to sentencing. However if there was a trial, the role of the jury would be highly scrutinised.

One major concern would be that the media can greatly influence the opinions held by the public and therefore reduce the possibility of unbiased jurors, therefore substantially affecting the outcome of the case. This aspect is definitely applicable to the role of the Judge, as they must also remain impartial and unbiased at all possible times. The idealistic role of the judge (in this situation) is to conduct the penalty hearing according to the strict rules of the court, supervise proceeding by ensuring the hearing is conducted according to rules of evidence; they must rule over points of law and exclude irrelevant, misleading and illegally obtained evidence and therefore pass an appropriate sentence (generally with the use of a relevant precedent). Penalty / Sentencing In determining an appropriate punishment, the Judge considered various factors which ultimately affected the severity of the sentence: o The gravity of the offence or offences o The moral culpability of the offender; based upon a reasoned analysis to what is obvious to rational human beings o The effect upon the victims o The need to protect society from similar conduct by others, or repetition of it by the offender himself o His background and antecedents o Any form of contrition or remorse on his part o The mental / psychological condition of this individual The Judge considered that he clearly has a mental condition, which rendered him less capable than those with a normal healthy mind that would recognise the enormity of his conduct and the repercussions upon others. The psychiatric evidence shows that he is of a limited intellectual ability, his measured IQ is substantially below the borderline therefore he is placed in the intellectually disabled range; however Martin Bryant's has the capacity to function reasonably well within the community. It was from an early age he has displayed severe developmental problems, being grossly disturbed from early childhood.

Whatever its precise diagnosis as to which the psychiatrists differ, he suffers from a significant personality disorder. For the Protection of the community; the law required that Martin Bryant fully serve the maximum sentence. In the words of, Chief Justice Cox: "On each of these 73 indictments, I sentenced you to imprisonment for the term of your natural life, I order that you not be eligible for parole in respect of any such sentence". Generally, the process of sentencing requires judges to, refer to and utilise relevant precedent (s), however, this particular case is obviously unprecedented; therefore Justice Cox has established the precedent to which other Judges must refer to if a similar case were to arise. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Law While there are practical and philosophical aspects in the desire to assume that the law constantly and consistently achieves its objectives; we must analyse this situation through a binary approach (double sided approach) in order to determine the effectiveness of the law rationally and ethically. The purpose of law generally is to maintain order within society and to govern the various interactions between its citizens.

Therefore we must recognise precise aspects of this unprecedented case besides the fact that acts of inhumane destruction was caused by Martin Bryant. It is clear that Martin Bryant has a mental condition, which renders him less capable than those with a normal healthy mind; whom would recognise the enormity of his conduct and the repercussions retained upon others. However, the law recognises that if a person is afflicted by a mental disease to such an extent that he is unable to understand the physical character of what he is doing in, or that he is rendered incapable of knowing that such an act is which he should not to do, or if he acts under an impulse which, is reasoned / explained by a mental disease, he is in substance deprived of any power to resist such action, therefore should not be held criminally responsible for an act, in which a sane person would clearly recognise. Society is entitled to be protected from such a person, therefore Martin Bryant should be held criminally responsible and subsequently serve the determined sentence. Though he has ultimately pleaded guilty; his change of plea was due to his recognition of the undoubted strength of evidence against him that basically amounts to his personal acknowledgment of what he has done wrong. Having regard to the nature and extent of his conduct, the Port Arthur massacre can be regarded as the worst ever crime in Australian history, falling within the worse category of cases for which the maximum penalty is no doubtedly prescribed.

Taking account the medical evidence and Martin Bryant's lack of insight into the magnitude and effect of his conduct, which is reflected in all his appearances before the Court (i.e. his shocking / disgraceful behaviour e.g. laughing loudly and making ludicrous comments). And the reason to fear that he would remain indefinitely as disturbed and insensitive as he was when planning and executing these crimes of which he stood convicted. The law achieved its objectives by prioritising the protection / safety of the community by ensuring that Martin Bryant serves the maximum sentence: life sentence imprisonment for the term of his natural life without parole. The objective of this punishment can be explained on the basis of three main things: Deterrence - designed to discourage other people from committing this type of crime in the future; Retribution- traditional concept of 'revenge' or 'paying back' Martin Bryant; and Incapacitation: making provisions to make Martin Bryant incapable of committing further offences, seen as a purpose of punishment for the protection the community from such conduct. However, the effectiveness of the punishment is fairly limited; I personally believe Martin Bryant should have received the death penalty (this raises a different issue; primarily relates to international human rights conventions and domestic law that forbids such action).

Therefore in conclusion, the Port Arthur massacre is a perfect example of the existence of justice, that the function of law not only interpreted and accounted for the differences in obligations but also comprehended both sides of the story without any form of bias or prejudice; subsequently ensuring Martin Bryant is confined in a prison for the term of his natural life; rendering the purpose of law effective in dealing with this particular case.