HSC Legal Studies Question Thread

[martinarena_]

"The process commonly used with juveniles, involving a conference attended by the offender, the victim and other supporters is known as

(A) Plea bargaining
(B) Circle sentencing
(C) Restorative justice
(D) Alternative dispute resolution"

This multiple choice question was in my half yearlies and I had put down D as my answer, but C turned out as the correct answer. When I approached my teacher about it and told him that I had thought it'd been D, he said that if I could prove that it was D he would give me the mark. Can someone/some of you give me reasons as to why it could also be D so that I could be given a mark? Thank you!

Hi there!
So I've got a couple of reasons/justifications to why D could also be the answer. Just check the following of what I'm about to mention, in case I made a mistake of interpreting the info etc. :
(1) Restorative justice in itself, focuses on the reconciliation between the offender and the victim by mediating an agreement
(2) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/17/restorative-justice-young-offenders-crime  AND http://crg.aic.gov.au/reports/strang/nsw.html
The websites show that restorative justice CAN be used for young offenders
(3) Quote from pg 89 of Cambridge 4th edition textbook HSC Legal Studies 'it has been suggested that restorative justice programs will continue to relate mainly to minor infringements or youth justice' -- shows that restorative justice programs are mainly used in youth justice

Hope that helps!! Best of luck

[jamonwindeyer]

"The process commonly used with juveniles, involving a conference attended by the offender, the victim and other supporters is known as

(A) Plea bargaining
(B) Circle sentencing
(C) Restorative justice
(D) Alternative dispute resolution"

This multiple choice question was in my half yearlies and I had put down D as my answer, but C turned out as the correct answer. When I approached my teacher about it and told him that I had thought it'd been D, he said that if I could prove that it was D he would give me the mark. Can someone/some of you give me reasons as to why it could also be D so that I could be given a mark? Thank you!

Hey! I agree that the answer could either be C or D - D is just any sort of process used to resolve a dispute without a court. C encompasses all measures that focus on rehabilitation of offenders, rather than punishment.

What that question is really describing is a Youth Justice Conference, but since that isn't an option, I'd say C or D would be equally correct

[MarioMaurice]

Hey,

I was reading that anyone who commits murder is liable to a penalty of imprisonment for life (as the maximum penalty for murder). Can a judge impose a penalty other than imprisonment such as home detention for the crime of murder if believed to be appropriate.

Doesn't a maximum penalty just mean that a judge can't impose a sentence higher than the 'maximum penalty'. Meaning, he/ she can choose any other penalty of a lower severity than the maximum penalty if deemed appropriate (at their discretion)? As long as it just doesn't exceed the legislated maximum penalty.

Am I correct??

Second thing, I was reading an evaluation on fines that said "Fines are biased against those people who have a low income as they do not take into account the offender’s ability to pay the fine". Isn't that reputable, as the person can appeal the penalty (fine imposed) and a re sentence after informing the court of their low income and thus incapability to pay the fine. At this stage, can't the judge use their discretion to create amends and impose a more fair sentence that is in line with the person's financial capabilities (e.g lower the fine)?

Thanks

[MarioMaurice]

Hi! 

What is meant by question/ point of law? - was a past multiple choice 
What is meant by question of fact?
Difference between the two??

Thanks!

[Razeen25]

Hey guys, I have a question.

In my legal studies exam there was a multiple choice:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an example of:
a) A statute
b) A treaty
c) Common law
d) Customary law / jus cogens

I chose B but got it incorrect. I would've gotten 100% if it wasn't for this one multiple choice so I was kinda annoyed lol.

Could someone please explain why d) is correct and b) is not? : (
Thank you!!

[jamonwindeyer]

Welcome to the forums Maurice!

Hey,

I was reading that anyone who commits murder is liable to a penalty of imprisonment for life (as the maximum penalty for murder). Can a judge impose a penalty other than imprisonment such as home detention for the crime of murder if believed to be appropriate.

Doesn't a maximum penalty just mean that a judge can't impose a sentence higher than the 'maximum penalty'. Meaning, he/ she can choose any other penalty of a lower severity than the maximum penalty if deemed appropriate (at their discretion)? As long as it just doesn't exceed the legislated maximum penalty.

Am I correct??

Indeed, you are correct, the dictated penalties in the Crimes Act are maximums

Second thing, I was reading an evaluation on fines that said "Fines are biased against those people who have a low income as they do not take into account the offender’s ability to pay the fine". Isn't that reputable, as the person can appeal the penalty (fine imposed) and a re sentence after informing the court of their low income and thus incapability to pay the fine. At this stage, can't the judge use their discretion to create amends and impose a more fair sentence that is in line with the person's financial capabilities (e.g lower the fine)?

Thanks

Again, correct - Like, pretty much any point in Legal is refutable. So yes, you could refute that statement by saying that the magistrate could impose a different penalty if they believed it necessary. For this sort of stuff, there is no correct/incorrect, only whether you back up your evaluation

Hi! 

What is meant by question/ point of law? - was a past multiple choice 
What is meant by question of fact?
Difference between the two??

Thanks!

Question/point of law is just (in the context of juries, I assume) stuff in a Trial that requires explanation or clarification by the judge, it requires application of legal principles. That's primarily what they are there for - To make sure the jury understands the more intricate legal aspects of a trial. We aren't all lawyers, after all

Questions of fact are questions that are instead answered by considering evidence - "Was Person A at the shop at 2am?" would be an example. That is handled by the jury, not the judge

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey guys, I have a question.

In my legal studies exam there was a multiple choice:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an example of:
a) A statute
b) A treaty
c) Common law
d) Customary law / jus cogens

I chose B but got it incorrect. I would've gotten 100% if it wasn't for this one multiple choice so I was kinda annoyed lol.

Could someone please explain why d) is correct and b) is not? : (
Thank you!!

Hey! Trick question (sort of), I definitely see why you picked B, I probably would have on first glance as well

Process of elimination:

- Clearly not a statute, ditch A
- Clearly not common law, ditch C

Ditching these more 'domestic' legal terms, we are left with a treaty or customary law. It's in the name - Universal Declaration on Human Rights. A declaration isn't legally binding. A treaty is legally binding. UDHR is the former.

So the answer is D

[MarioMaurice]

Hi Jamon  Thanks for the reply

So only jurors question fact, not a judge. Judges explain point of law to the jury.
What can jurors question and not question in trial? I know they can question witnesses. Can they question arguments (presented by either the prosecution or defence) and other evidence presented, not just witnesses? These would all be question of fact, right??

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi Jamon  Thanks for the reply

So only jurors question fact, not a judge. Judges explain point of law to the jury.
What can jurors question and not question in trial? I know they can question witnesses. Can they question arguments (presented by either the prosecution or defence) and other evidence presented, not just witnesses? These would all be question of fact, right??

Correct jurors can't really examine witnesses, like, the legal representation are still asking the questions and leading the proceedings, I guess. The jurors interpret the evidence how they choose - They answer the questions of fact by considering the evidence through their eyes.

Jurors definitely can't get into arguments with prosecution or defence. They can't stand up and go, "That's bullshit," if they think a witness is lying. They can, however, make the internal decision that the witness is lying and base their verdict on that decision. They can choose to internally disagree with a prosecution argument.

So I guess you are correct, but it's not a literal 'question.' It's just that, jurors are presented with evidence, and they interpret it how they choose, and therefore answer 'questions of fact' based on that interpretation.

Questions of law are answered by the judge. The judge explains these answers to the jury so they know how the law works in a certain aspect of the trial

[MarioMaurice]

Thanks! That really helped. 

[Razeen25]

Hey! Trick question (sort of), I definitely see why you picked B, I probably would have on first glance as well

Process of elimination:

- Clearly not a statute, ditch A
- Clearly not common law, ditch C

Ditching these more 'domestic' legal terms, we are left with a treaty or customary law. It's in the name - Universal Declaration on Human Rights. A declaration isn't legally binding. A treaty is legally binding. UDHR is the former.

So the answer is D

I actually didn't know that a treaty was legally binding! The reason I chose Treaty was because in the 2015 HSC there was a multiple choice question "The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an example of which of the following?" and even though both 'Customary law' and 'a treaty' were in the options, 'a treaty' was the correct answer.

I don't understand the difference between the two, is it because the UDHR is a Declaration that it is considered Customary law instead of a treaty? And also, the ICESCR isn't legally binding but 'a treaty' was the correct answer. I'm actually really confused . Could you please explain it?

[jamonwindeyer]

I actually didn't know that a treaty was legally binding! The reason I chose Treaty was because in the 2015 HSC there was a multiple choice question "The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an example of which of the following?" and even though both 'Customary law' and 'a treaty' were in the options, 'a treaty' was the correct answer.

Yep, so covenant and treaty are essentially equivalent, but both are different from a declaration. Treaty/covenants are binding, declarations are not

I don't understand the difference between the two, is it because the UDHR is a Declaration that it is considered Customary law instead of a treaty? And also, the ICESCR isn't legally binding but 'a treaty' was the correct answer. I'm actually really confused . Could you please explain it?

ICESCR is legally binding, but like, not in the same way that a domestic law would be. You rely on the signatory state to enforce the treaty, and if they don't, options are limited - But it is legally binding (in the sense that not following it is a violation of international law)

[Razeen25]

Yep, so covenant and treaty are essentially equivalent, but both are different from a declaration. Treaty/covenants are binding, declarations are not

ICESCR is legally binding, but like, not in the same way that a domestic law would be. You rely on the signatory state to enforce the treaty, and if they don't, options are limited - But it is legally binding (in the sense that not following it is a violation of international law)

Thank you so so much for this Jamon! I now understand where I went wrong lool and will remember this for next time!

[henrychapman]

Anyone who does/is doing world order - would you mind providing insight into the way you structured a world order essay. Imagine the question is about legal and non legal responses. For example, how you framed your arguments, where you put your case studies in etc etc. Even better, if you could provide a sample paragraph/essay, that would be really really helpful !
Thank yiou

[NowYouTseMe]

Anyone who does/is doing world order - would you mind providing insight into the way you structured a world order essay. Imagine the question is about legal and non legal responses. For example, how you framed your arguments, where you put your case studies in etc etc. Even better, if you could provide a sample paragraph/essay, that would be really really helpful !
Thank yiou

So for a legal and non-legal responses question, I'd do 3 legal response paragraphs (UNGA, UNSC, ICC) and 1 non-legal responses paragraph encompassing NGOs and the media. Below, I've put a paragraph that my mate and I constructed using case studies from the Middle East presentation we did during the holidays (that literally only 1 person from my entire cohort turned up to) that shows how I'd structure every World Order essay paragraph. This paragraph's case studies can probably be used as a Middle East paragraph for a Regional and Global Threats essay as well as the Legal and Non-Legal Responses essay, and maybe even an R2P paragraph in a State Sovereignty essay on top of that. Keep in mind that you don't need to have like 6 case studies per paragraph for an A-range mark, but to go above and beyond, this type of argument/paragraph style has served me well all year.

Spoiler

Due to the presence of autocratic dictatorships and terrorist non-state actors, multilateral cooperation must exist between all fifteen members of the UNSC to achieve world order, whilst adhering to international legal principle. The enshrinement of the international principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is reflected in the UNSC’s adoption of resolutions 1970 and 1973 in 2011 to enforce a ‘no fly zone’ to protect civilians in NATO’s efforts in the Libyan uprising against Gaddafi’s dictatorship. Additionally, the First Gulf War (1991) ‘Operation Desert Storm’, mandated by UNSC resolution 661, portrays the legal use of coercive powers to uphold Article 51 of the UN Charter (self defence) by liberating Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. However, the UNSC’s ability to enforce R2P and maintain world order is hindered by the veto power of the P5 as showcased in Russia and China’s 12 vetoes of draft-resolutions, which attempt to impose sanctions or investigate chemical weapons in Syria, “to protect international rule of law, peace and security” as argued by Russia’s Ambassador to the UN. The USA-led Coalition has also impeded the progress of international law as exemplified in USA, UK, and France’s veto of a 2018 Russian proposal condemning the West’s illegal missile strike following alleged chemical weapons attacks, thus reinforcing the “deadlock at the UN” as described by the Wall St Journal 2018.  Therefore, to achieve greater effectiveness in the UNSC’s ability to resolve conflict in the Middle East, nation-states must forego strategic interests to promote peace and security.