VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[viralcricstar]

Hi Selby,
The end of year exam sadly has a higher total mark - 80 instead of 70 marks in the previous study design. As such, on average you should take 1 min and 30 seconds for each mark. I strongly suggest that you finish the short response (1-4 markers) faster than the average time per mark as they aren't too difficult. You may use about 2 minutes per mark in an 8 or 10 marker and other time to proofread. In regard to sac, it depends on the relativeness of the marks and time decided by your teacher. For example, if it is a 30 mark sac and you are given 60 minutes, take closer to 2 minutes per mark.

[You dont know me]

How exactly would you answer such a question in an exam to receive 2 marks:
Outline how the Victorian Court hierarchy helps achieve specialisation in Victoria's justice system

Thanks,
Selby 

[Poet]

How exactly would you answer such a question in an exam to receive 2 marks:
Outline how the Victorian Court hierarchy helps achieve specialisation in Victoria's justice system

Thanks,
Selby 

Hey, Selby!
This is a pretty simple question, when you think about it. In an exam, you'd answer this question with two ways that the Vic Court hierarchy can achieve it; exactly what the question specifies.
Your points to write on would be:

• ensuring that parties dissatisfied with the outcome of their case could appeal their case in a higher court
• utilising different courts for different types of cases depending on their seriousness.
• utilising different courts for different types of cases depending on their subject.

It's only two marks, so not much time should be spent on it.
Stick that in a sentence and bam, you're good to go.

edit: correction noted! Whoops! 

[You dont know me]

Hey, Selby!
This is a pretty simple question, when you think about it. In an exam, you'd answer this question with two ways that the Vic Court hierarchy can achieve it; exactly what the question specifies.
Your points to write on would be:

• ensuring that parties dissatisfied with the outcome of their case could appeal their case in a higher court
• utilising different courts for different types of crimes depending on their seriousness.

It's only two marks, so not much time should be spent on it.
Stick that in a sentence and bam, you're good to go.

I should have specified more sorry.

There will be 3 questions identical to these:
Outline how the Victorian court hierarchy helps achieve specialisation in Victorias's justice system. (2 marks)
Outline how the Victoria court hierarchy helps achieve administrative connivence. (2 marks)/i]
Outline why the Victorian court hierarchy needs to exist for an appeals system to exist. (1 mark)

So, for example, I'm answering the first question, I can't mention appeals within the answer as it is not to do with appeals, and all the answers must have different content and cannot be restated in further answers.

Dunno if that made any sense whatsoever, but I tried .

Thanks,
Selby

[MissSmiley]

Hey, Selby!
This is a pretty simple question, when you think about it. In an exam, you'd answer this question with two ways that the Vic Court hierarchy can achieve it; exactly what the question specifies.
Your points to write on would be:

• ensuring that parties dissatisfied with the outcome of their case could appeal their case in a higher court
• utilising different courts for different types of crimes depending on their seriousness.

It's only two marks, so not much time should be spent on it.
Stick that in a sentence and bam, you're good to go.

Hey Poet and Selby!
I'm very sorry to interrupt this, especially when Poet's given great advice!
However, I do think that the point about "ensuring that parties dissatisfied with the outcome of their case could appeal their case in a higher court" is more to do with 'appeals' as a reason for the court hierarchy.
For specialisation, you'd just have to elaborate on Poet's second point.
Because different courts hear varying complexity of cases, they have developed expertise, and that's why they are trained to hear similar cases like that. This aims to ensure competency (which is what court and its personnel should be

But other than that Poet has given great advice about time management --> quick, short, snappy two mark questions

Thanks guys!

EDIT: Haha! Sorry Poet! Just realised Selby commented about the appeals point before me and then I clicked 'post' 

[TheBamboozler]

Hey everyone, I'd like some clarification on this dot point on the study design.

    discuss the responsibilities of key personnel in a civil trial

Seeing as this is a discuss question, there must be strengths and weaknesses correct. However, when discussing these weaknesses do we refer to the adversary system or the responsibilities weaknesses. What I mean is I don't understand how the responsibilities of e.g. manage the trial, decide on admissibility of evidence or making an opening and closing statement, can have any obvious weaknesses or strengths associated with them.

If anyone has anything that can help me out, that'd be so appreciated. 

[meganrobyn]

'Discuss' is more flexible than just S&W - it means to look at a range of perspectives and subjective opinions. So ask yourself questions like:

- Are all of these roles good and desirable? Do we like that the judge doesn't assist parties? Do we like that the lawyers have to balance duties to the court and their client? Etc

- Are all of these roles performed effectively in practice?

- Do any of these roles (while desirable in some ways) have negative side effects, so it's a trade-off?

Those kinds of things.

[MissSmiley]

Hi guys,

Just a case study question:
Ronald became violent towards his partner Belinda, resulting in her being hospitalised. Ronald has since been charged with various indictable offences, including causing serious injury intentionally. Ronald has been refused bail and has not pleaded guilty. He wants to negotiate with the prosecutor to drop the charges and for him to be found not guilty. Belinda doesn't like the idea of negotiations.

And the question is - "Discuss the appropriateness of plea negotiations in this case."

Now I'm not sure what to discuss. Do I need to have a point of view? I don't know if they're appropriate to this case or not. Or do I not have a point of view?
Also, for the strengths, could you say how it'll be quicker, and other general advantages of plea negotiations? Or do I need to talk about the strengths of plea negotiations relating to the case? I don't what advantages plea negotiations could bring to this case though.
Also, would a weakness be that Ronald would be let off too easily and that if Belinda doesn't like negotiations, then it would not be appropriate to have them? (because she won't cooperate)

What would be other things I could put into my answer? (It's for 5 marks)

Thanks a lot guys!

[viralcricstar]

Hi MissSmiley,
Firstly make sure you have a list of when plea negotations can be appropriate and when can it.
This is how i would structure my response:
Define plea negotiations

Paragprah 1:
Plea negotations may not be appropriate in this case as Ronald does not want to plead guilty. 
Furthermore, they may also be inappropriate as the victim in this case (Belinda) views plea negotiations in a bleak manner.

Paragraph 2:
Because this question is skewed towards plea negotations is not being appropriate, the only way plea negotations would be appropriate is that there are a large number of cases for the prosecution, and hence a plea negotation could reduce Ronald's charges which would mean that the proseuction saves ample of time and funds

Feel free to suggest any issues with my structure

[MissSmiley]

Hi MissSmiley,
Firstly make sure you have a list of when plea negotations can be appropriate and when can it.
This is how i would structure my response:
Define plea negotiations

Paragprah 1:
Plea negotations may not be appropriate in this case as Ronald does not want to plead guilty. 
Furthermore, they may also be inappropriate as the victim in this case (Belinda) views plea negotiations in a bleak manner.

Paragraph 2:
Because this question is skewed towards plea negotations is not being appropriate, the only way plea negotations would be appropriate is that there are a large number of cases for the prosecution, and hence a plea negotation could reduce Ronald's charges which would mean that the proseuction saves ample of time and funds

Feel free to suggest any issues with my structure

Thanks a lot viralcricstar!
I'll use your structure and suggestions to write a response and I'll check it with my teacher!
Thank you!

[MissSmiley]

Hi everyone,

I'm unsure on what "checks and balances" actually means...
Often I find myself using either word in all of my answers, and then my teacher tells me when it doesn't make sense when I use 'checks' or 'balances.'
For example obviously when talking about the Seperation of powers you would use this, but what other areas could you use this?
Could I say that s109 helps to balance power between the Commonwealth and State law-making arms by acting as a restriction on state law-making power? (states realise that Commonwealth law prevails?)
But then I think Commonwealth has more power over the states anyway (because there's more laws made through exclusive and concurrent powers). So how can there be a balance anytime?

I'm confused!
All the 5 things (bicameral structure...double majority obviously act as "checks" on Aus Constitution (that's what the study design says)
But where could I use 'balances'?

Thank you so much!! 

[viralcricstar]

Hi Miss Smiley,
I reckon you could use the word balances for 'requirement of a double majority in a referendum', where the power to create and pass a proposal does not entirely lie with the parliament. It is balanced out between the parliament, and the people as well because both these parties are required vote.
Balances could of course be used for seperation of powers too as the seperation of executive, judicial, and legislative powers are distributed (in theory).

Good luck!

[viralcricstar]

Hi MissSmiley,
I reckon you could use the word balances for 'requirement of a double majority in a referendum', where the power to create and pass a proposal does not entirely lie with the parliament. It is balanced out between the parliament, and the people as well because both these parties are required vote.
Balances could of course be used for seperation of powers too as the seperation of executive, judicial, and legislative powers are distributed (in theory).

Good luck!

[lou0018]

Opinions on doing legal without units 1/2? I'm a hard worker and tend to be good at humanities. I am aiming for 40+ study score, is this doable in legal? and what style of learning/ study should i focus on if i study legal? Thank you

[Poet]

Opinions on doing legal without units 1/2? I'm a hard worker and tend to be good at humanities. I am aiming for 40+ study score, is this doable in legal? and what style of learning/ study should i focus on if i study legal? Thank you

Hi lou0018,
This is absolutely a doable goal! Units 1/2 are certainly important for background information, and it will be more work and holiday studies for you to catch up, but if you're a hard worker and have a good memory, Legal is quite a straightforward subject.
The 'style of learning' that I've found most effective in Legal is rote - there's a lot of information to take in, but much of it is just simple memorisation. Questions are typically straightforward, so as long as you know your stuff you'll be absolutely fine.
I recommend talking with your school's Legal teacher/s and flipping through both the 1/2 and 3/4 study designs. Good luck!