Byron’s law Essay Example

the legal system.

As women's rights became more and more of an issue (particularly through the feminist movement of the 60's and 70's), and in order to better support the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women made in 1993, this new legislation was seen as important in order to establish equality between the genders.Similarly, the Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Act 2005 shows the way in which the entire definition of child is starting to be questioned. For many years it has been considered by the legal system that a foetus isn't technically alive until it draws breath. However, this oft-debated topic has become more and more heatedly contested in recent years, due to both the increased prevalence of crime being directed at pregnant women, but also the differing perspectives that reflect these beliefs.

There are many people who believe that the new legislation was taking the rights of women too far, and that as the foetus had not yet taken breath, it was not human, and therefore there is no way that it could be murder. There are others (particularly people affiliated with organisations such as the NSW Right to Life Association, or the Catholic Church), who believe that life begins at the moment of conception, and thus these actions equate as cold-blooded, premeditated murder.One of the largest influences in the passing of this law however was the immense political pressure being placed upon the government. With outcomes in other cases not yet reflecting justice, many parties- including those families affected, the Church, various Right-to-Life Associations and the media- were trying to influence the government to pass legislation that would act

as both a deterrent, but also as an appropriate punishment, in situations such as these.It was not long, however, before the government had this legislation revoked.

In November of 2005, only six months after it was first introduced, the Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Act 2005 was repealed under Section 4 of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 2) 2005, which was created both to cut costs, but also to revise statute law. This is representative of the government's desire to change the law, tempered with caution to ensure they are making the right decision.Since that date, several other states have passed legislation to protect pregnant women and their unborn children, most notably the ACT, with the Crimes (Offences Against Pregnant Women) Amendment Act 2006, but this too has been repealed by an overly cautious government.The necessity of a law to protect unborn children and their mothers is becoming more and more obvious.

As distasteful as it is, these situations have and will keep occurring. Unless more appropriate actions are taken, will there ever be any chance for our own children to grow up in a world free from such atrocities?With the repealing of the Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Act 2005, a major weapon in the fight to protect our children has been removed. Let us hope that we don't live to regret its removal.