Critically evaluate three strengths of courts as law-makers

[bluebubble]

can someone please please please help me with evaluating a strength OR if you can, post a good response.

thanks will be much appreciated.

[KristyDanielle]

For this question you would need to know three strengths, then evaluate those three strengths (find the disadvantage in them as well).

Critical evaluation of three strengths of courts as law makers:

1. Through the doctrine of precedent the courts are able to be flexible, but on the other hand, the doctrine of precedent creates rigidity by courts having to be bound by past decisions.
2. The courts must make a decision as soon as possible and justice will be achieved, however access to precedent can be difficult as it can be hard to find relevant cases that suit a case.
3. The courts are able to create laws efficiently, but the courts must also wait until a test case is brought before them before they are able to create or change a law.

[bluebubble]

Okay thanks so much

[connej]

This is exactly like a question i got our SAC for aos 3 and its the only question that i dropped marks i hate evaluating

[meganrobyn]

I know evaluating can be the most frustrating part, especially because it's marked the most subjectively, but try to look at its positives: it's one of the only parts of the course that has NO "required" content!

In other words, you can write ANY strengths and weaknesses that you like, that you know you can explain well, that you personally agree with - and use ANY examples or evidence you want to back it up - and you don't have to worry about wording it the same way as the examiner or covering "required" content or keywords.

Evaluating and comparing are the two parts of the course where this is the case, so just read as many strengths and weaknesses from other people as possible, then be like a magpie - pick out all the best one, the ones you like and agree with, and start every question on the topic with the ones you feel most confident on.