HSC Legal Studies Question Thread

[Kekemato_BAP]

Hey! You could definitely do more than one if you preferred it - It would probably be easier, since you wouldn't need as much depth! Basically, you just need a handful (1 to 3 probably) of situations, where you can evaluate the response of Legal and Non-Legal measures to those situations (North Korea would be a good case study right now)

Oh ok. Also, what would be a non-legal measure? I know legal measures like the UN and government treaties, but kinda stumped on the non-legal aspect :/

[kiiaaa]

hey, all!
I have a few questions I was wondering if you could help me out with firstly what is mandatory sentencing? (my teacher and the textbook do explain it but i just cant get it into my head so this was my hope) and what is good and bad about it?
secondly what is subjective circumstance and objective seriousness and how does it differ from mitigating and aggravating factors (sort of confuzzled)
thanks so much

[jamonwindeyer]

Can someone help me out with what i am supposed to do for this research oral task?

Hey Rasika! What specifically about the task description is giving you trouble? Any particular aspects that are the most confusing to you? This is a big task, and it is laid out quite methodically, just want to know how best to get you started

[jamonwindeyer]

Oh ok. Also, what would be a non-legal measure? I know legal measures like the UN and government treaties, but kinda stumped on the non-legal aspect :/

Non-Legal for World Order is so tough - The two I always recommend are NGO's - Red Cross and Amnesty International. Both have links to human rights but can also be linked to World Order; they both deal with those affected by global/regional conflicts, treatment of prisoners of war, and other World Order issues. Definitely worth a look

[jamonwindeyer]

hey, all!
I have a few questions I was wondering if you could help me out with firstly what is mandatory sentencing? (my teacher and the textbook do explain it but i just cant get it into my head so this was my hope) and what is good and bad about it?
secondly what is subjective circumstance and objective seriousness and how does it differ from mitigating and aggravating factors (sort of confuzzled)
thanks so much

Mandatory Sentencing: A specific sentence for a specific crime. So, instead of a judge being able to apply their discretion to decide on a sentence (up to a maximum set by legislation), they must give a specific punishment (at minimum). Despite the specifics of the case, any mitigating/aggravating factors, all irrelevant - The minimum must be met regardless.

So in NSW, the most recent example of this is the mandatory sentencing for 'king hits.' The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2015 says:

A court is required to impose a sentence of imprisonment of not less than
8 years on a person guilty of an offence under section 25A (2). Any non-parole
period for the sentence is also required to be not less than 8 years.

So, if you are found guilty of this offence, you get 8 years minimum. This takes a lot of the judicial discretion away from judges, as they have further restrictions. You can argue this is effective for consistency and protection of societal values, but it is absolutely a restriction of judicial discretion, and arguably a restriction of the rights of the offender.

As for subjective/objective circumstances, they aren't assessable knowledge. However, to my understanding, 'objective' factors are aspects of the crime itself, while 'subjective' factors are those to do with the offender themselves. It's a slightly different categorisation than mitigating/aggravating (again, not specifically assessable)

[Rasika]

Hey!

It is the last section which i'm confused with..

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey!

It is the last section which i'm confused with..

Sure! So what that last section is asking you to do is make a judgement about how effective the Family Court is in dealing with the cases it hears. You do this by examining the response in terms of the criteria they give you:

Equality: Is the court able to achieve consistently just outcomes for all parties?
Accessibility: Is the court that is easy for the Australian populace to utilise to pursue justice in Family Law scenarios?
Enforceability: Do the courts' decisions end up being followed? Are they legally binding?
Resource efficiency: How well are available resources used to achieve justice in these scenarios?
Protection and recognition of individual rights: How well are individual human rights recognised (taken into consideration) and/or protected as necessary?
Law as a reflection of community standards and expectations: How accurately do Family Court decisions reflect the way the Australian community views the scenario?
Opportunities for appeals and review: For all parties, is there a chance to question decisions made?
Balance of individual rights and values and community rights and values: Is a fair balance achieved between looking after the individual, and doing what is right for the community?

Not all of these will be equally relevant, and you don't need them all - But you'll need some combo of them in your evaluation

[Rasika]

Can someone help me find a case that has been heard in the family court of australia? i cant find any because the ones i found are closed to the public... help

[MisterNeo]

Can someone help me find a case that has been heard in the family court of australia? i cant find any because the ones i found are closed to the public... help

Hi! Those closed court cases are quite hard to find!
I would try searching the Family Court website if you haven't checked already.
Hope this helps

[parthie]

Hey

Does anyone have a good definition for a "just outcome"

Would be appreciated Thanks

[MisterNeo]

Hey

Does anyone have a good definition for a "just outcome"

Would be appreciated Thanks

Hi! This question once stumped me too in class.
I would say "just outcomes" refers to the ability of the legal system/police in achieving justice for all parties involved. This would include the offender, victim(s), and society
You would talk about the advantages and disadvantages of things such as bail/remand, discretion, etc.
For example, remand protects the victim/society from the offender. But, the offender is under the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, bail?. What if he was actually innocent but was held in remand for a long time? There is a delicate balancing act that leads perfectly into the ability of the CJS in achieving "just outcomes".

Hope this helps, a bit lengthy of an answer 

[elysepopplewell]

Hey

Does anyone have a good definition for a "just outcome"

Would be appreciated Thanks

I would say that just means it adheres to the rights of the individuals involved, but also sees a reprimand appropriate to the individual case.

[marcusgrahamm]

Does anyone know any contemporary or great past cases that could be effectively used in a International Crime Extended Response ?

[elysepopplewell]

Does anyone know any contemporary or great past cases that could be effectively used in a International Crime Extended Response ?

hey marcus! Have a look at the Legal Studies notes we have here - Jamon state ranked and he's uploaded his notes to help out! There's lots of cases throughout the notes there.

[bellerina]

How would one answer this question:
"Outline the role of the Family Court of Australia in Australia’s legal system"