Framing of Federal Domestic Violence Policy †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Framing of Federal Domestic Violence Policy. Answer: Introduction: Cross-examination refers to the vital part of protecting those, who are accused for the sexual crimes. The complainant in the sexual assault trial can run on the identification and lack of consent. There should be no dispute of the occurrence of sexual contact. The advocate can face the indictment frequently with the numerous calculations. This needs to be scrutinized under the defense counsel to prevent the sexual assault. For such purpose, the cross- examination is necessary. At the time of child complaint, the preparation of the cross- examination needs to be prepared earlier. The characteristic of the complaints need to be analyzed. Zydervelt et al. (2016) mentioned thatbit is necessary to make the chronology of the complaint so that at the time of analysis, no problem can occur. The support of the forensic test is necessary in case of cross- examination. This policy helps to reform the limit cross- examination of the sexual assault complaints. However, in Australia, the number o f conviction rate in the sexual cases is decreasing gradually due to the cross-examination policy. This can include the statement of Policy and Practice of the police prosecution services. In such case, Westera et al. (2017) mentioned that the police and prosecution plays the important role to take the proper decision. The policy is made to help the victims of sexual harassment. There should be a presumption to use an alternative way to collect the evidence rather than the video recording. Aspect of the trial method, the complainant needs to know about the psoobile alternative ways. This will help to provide the evidence with the physical layout of courtroom. This can include the access as well as the waiting room. Henderson (2015) mentioned that during the involvement of victim, the prosecutor needs to ensure that the arrangements should be made for victims for meeting with victim Advisor. The alternative meaning of evidence needs to be explained by the victim. Keam and Cook (2016) mentioned that the guidance can suggest the third person to convey the information gathered from the complainant to prosecutor. The difficulty in such context is that the victim advisor needs to explain the alternative way before using the alternative way. The performance can be expressed back to prosecutor. In such way , the prosecutor is also able to use then alternative way. This will help to enquiry about the relevant information of the complainant and provide the best outcome. The victim can be afraid to convey the information but the victim adviser needs to handle the situation and reveal the truth (Stolzenberg and Lyon 2014). Strength and weakness: The strength of the policy is that the alternative way is useful to reveal the truth. This helps to build the relationship in between the prosecutor and victim advisor. This provides a better chance to convey the conviction (Konradi 2016). In such way, the victim is able to express her feelings and emotions. The victim can express the frustration and fear. This helps to involve the evidence physically rather than recorded videos. The policy helps to make people aware about the crime and guilt as well as the punishment. The alternative way can include the interview system, in which the victim adviser can interview the victim if she feels problems to convey her feelings in front of the courtroom (Zydervelt et al. 2016). Another way that the process can involve is installing CCTV camera in the waiting room and court room to record the incidence of the victim. This can help in another case. However, the rate of such incidence is decreasing in present days, which is a good point of the alternative technique. The interview and footage record can be sent for the forensic test that will help in the courtroom (Stolzenberg and Lyon 2014). In the alternative way, the evidence mainly shares the right information to the courtroom as wrong information can be punishable. In such case, the victim advisor and the prosecutor are also need to make the evidence aware of. The alternative way helps to remove the annoying and offensive acts in the courtroom. The policy helps to reduce the ethnicity, race and sex difference of the evidence and helps them to convey their concerns without any fear. The weakness of the policy involves that the evidence may not be agreed to involve directly or physically in the courtroom. Moreover, the prosecution may face problems to apply such alternative way in the justice system. The victim can feel uneasy and shy or afraid to express her feelings and emotions in front of the court. Hoyano (2015) mentioned that the victim adviser may not find adequate number of evidence to show in the courtroom, which may lead to failure of the case. Therefore, before applying the alternative way, it is necessary to check all the consequences. As mentioned by Konradi (2016), the criminal justice is very difficult in case of the sexual harassment cases as the victim feels unsafe to convey the feelings. Therefore, it is necessary to incorporate the current strong legislatives and framework in the alternative method. The cases of sexual harassment need strong evidence that is difficult to obtain. Moreover, the forensic report may take long period and can be cost ly that the victim cannot bear (Westera et al. 2017). Therefore, the victim can be agreed to participate in the justice system and withdraw the case. Therefore, the victim needs safety and financial support to continue the case as well as the evidence. The prosecution needs to cooperate in the justice system and needs to be polite to the victim so that she do not feel uncomfortable to share her concerns and feelings (Sinclair 2015). Menial pressure is created on the victim as well as the evidence, which affects them negatively. This can cause of various health problems in the victim and the evidences. The cross examination policy has various strengths and weakness but can be used in the courtroom. The policy can develop the situation in Australia and reduce the sexual harassment cases. References Henderson, E., 2015. Bigger fish to fry: Should the reform of cross-examination be expanded beyond vulnerable witnesses?.The International Journal of Evidence Proof,19(2), pp.83-99. Hoyano, L., 2015. Reforming the adversarial trial for vulnerable witnesses and defendants.Criminal Law Review,2, pp.107-129. Keam, G. and Cook, K., 2016. The framing of federal domestic violence policy responses. InRefereed Proceedings of TASA 2016 Conference(p. 161). Konradi, A., 2016. Can Justice Be Served on Campus? An Examination of Due Process and Victim Protection Policies in the Campus Adjudication of Sexual Assault in Maryland.Humanity Society, p.0160597616651657. Sinclair, B., 2015. A Discussion Regarding a Partial Shift in the Burden of Proof in Sexual Violence Offending in New Zealand: the Search for Justice on Behalf of Complainants. Stolzenberg, S.N. and Lyon, T.D., 2014. How attorneys question children about the dynamics of sexual abuse and disclosure in criminal trials.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,20(1), p.19. Westera, N., Zydervelt, S., Kaladelfos, A. and Zajac, R., 2017. Sexual assault complainants on the stand: a historical comparison of courtroom questioning.Psychology, Crime Law,23(1), pp.15-31. Zydervelt, S., Zajac, R., Kaladelfos, A. and Westera, N., 2016. Lawyers strategies for cross-examining rape complainants: Have we moved beyond the 1950s?.British Journal of Criminology, p.azw023.