Legal Studies Exam Discussion

[Coralista]

Wait, I'm pretty sure you could about as many features as you wanted, but you had to contrast at least 2?

How did you structure your response? I thought 6 marks for evaluating and 4 marks for comparing two.
That would make 3 strengths and 3 weaknesses regarding to the effectiveness right?

[NickGeo34]

How did you guys find the last question?

I had 15 minutes left and I wrote only 2 pages. Does that mean that I cannot get a high mark, because they gave us 3 pages?

Plus, I found the question really narrow. You were only allowed to talk about two features of the adversary system, compare, and relate it to one element of an effective legal system.


Is it just me or did you guys struggled to find enough points?

I waffled on about cultural barriers/indigenous people

Our teacher always stressed to us that the 10 mark is more 'quality over quantity' and as long as you cover what the question asks you to do, you can get full marks no matter how much you write...

Going by that, I discussed the features of party control, role of the judge and strict rules of evidence and procedure, then related them back to how they help achieve a fair and unbiased hearing. Then I went into the inquisitorial/adversary thing by comparing role of the judge and rules of evidence and procedure between the two systems.

I managed to stretch that out into 2 pages and finished it with about 5 minutes to spare. Hopefully I did enough

[jeanweasley]

It was a very good exam. I wouldn't say easy but your knowledge to respond to questions were tested and if you couldn't think on your feet, you were definitely in trouble.

I'm so happy now because I am finished!

NO MORE EXAMS!!! PARTAAAAYYY!!

[mattbrown19]

How did you structure your response? I thought 6 marks for evaluating and 4 marks for comparing two.
That would make 3 strengths and 3 weaknesses regarding to the effectiveness right?

can someone type that question up please??....

[M_BONG]

Our teacher always stressed to us that the 10 mark is more 'quality over quantity' and as long as you cover what the question asks you to do, you can get full marks no matter how much you write...

Going by that, I discussed the features of party control, role of the judge and strict rules of evidence and procedure, then related them back to how they help achieve a fair and unbiased hearing. Then I went into the inquisitorial/adversary thing by comparing role of the judge and rules of evidence and procedure between the two systems.

I managed to stretch that out into 2 pages and finished it with about 5 minutes to spare. Hopefully I did enough

so you talked about three features? Can someone confirm/ type up question please.

[The Big Aristotle]

Was a really easy exam, ran out of time on the last question

[Flor]

How did you structure your response? I thought 6 marks for evaluating and 4 marks for comparing two.
That would make 3 strengths and 3 weaknesses regarding to the effectiveness right?

Intro
Role of the judge (how it links to fair and unbiased and intertwined my comparison within my discussion)
Rule of evidence and procedures (how it links to fair and unbiased and intertwined my comparison within my discussion)
Legal representation (how it links to fair and unbiased)

[Coralista]

so you talked about three features? Can someone confirm/ type up question please.

It went something like discuss the extent to which the features of adversarial system achieves one element of an effective legal system, compare 2 features of the adversarial system to inquisitorial system

[M_BONG]

It went something like discuss the extent to which the features of adversarial system achieves one element of an effective legal system, compare 2 features of the adversarial system to inquisitorial system

yup youre right. could have talked about more features.......

[NickGeo34]

so you talked about three features? Can someone confirm/ type up question please.

If I remember right, the question said something like 'To what extent does the adversary system achieve one of the elements of an effective legal system. In your response, compare two features of the adversary system to the inquisitorial system.'

Breaking this down, I put it into two parts.

1. To what extent? This can be discussed with whatever because it's not being compared to inquisitorial
2. Inquisitorial. Fairly self explanatory, compare two (and only two) features.

That's how I interpreted it, at least

[Flor]

yup youre right. could have talked about more features.......

Look, M_BONG it's okay, you can get the marks! It's all about HOW you discussed as opposed to the AMOUNT. As long as you addressed the question, you're all good Don't let this bog you down -- it was just one stupid (!) question. 

[Outclass]

Can someone confirm question 1b... Something about why the supreme court not having to follow precedent in the same court. It's really bugging me

[M_BONG]

Can someone confirm question 1b... Something about why the supreme court not having to follow precedent in the same court. It's really bugging me

bc a court is not bound by its own decision on same level.

plus you can add material facts dissimilar to justify not following the persuasive precedent.

[MrCommerce]

bc a court is not bound by its own decision on same level.

plus you can add material facts dissimilar to justify not following the persuasive precedent.

did you have to mention disapproval of the previous precedent?

[Captn Crumble]

Feeling really good about that exam. Only complaint was the length or maybe that was just me writing too much.

With 1b I used distinguishing.