Free Legal Essay Marking!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi!
was just wondering if i could get a paragraph for a family essay looked at? if i need to make more posts or anything like that please let me know
thanks in advance

Hey Nicki! No worries at all, your paragraph is below with comments throughout!

Spoiler

Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in achieving justice for parties involved in relationship breakdowns

The legal system in regards to dealing with relationship breakdowns demonstrates varying levels of justice being achieved depending on the party one belongs to, thus, showing somewhat effectiveness by the law. Watch expression in the topic sentence especially; make sure you are as clear as possible. Who specifically do you think suffers in this area; victims? The offender? Make this clear immediate.  The law aims to strongly replicate the risen societal value enshrined in the UN convention of the rights of the child 1989 that places necessity on ensuring the ''best interests of the child'' is paramount through enforcing the family law act 1975 (cth). Link this idea to what you've just discussed; achieving justice for all parties  in relationship breakdowns. Are the children the ones who may be neglected? this includes enduring the childs best interests are met in significant situations such as when amidst the divorce and separation of married or de-facto couples. a momentous reform by the family law system was the family law amendment (shared parental responsibility) act 2006 (cth) that established the notion that both parents have shared responsibility for the child regardless of where the parents or childs lives unless maintaining a meaningful relationship with either parent positions the child to be at risk of harm. Again, watch expression, ensure that your ideas come across as clear and succinct. this reflects the societal values that children should be able to interact with parents regularly and also recognises a parents moral right to spend adequate and quality time with their children. But how is it effective/ineffective for the rights of children? Make specific evaluations. this specifically recognising the lack of time a majority of fathers get to be with their children after separation or divorce as indicated in the australian institute of family studies report where ''only 20% of children spent an adequate amount of time with their father’'. Awesome statistic! Some really great evidence in this paragraph. the meaningful and fulfilling relationship one can form with their father is thus lost which is for a majority of children not in their best interests. however, a lack of clarity and emphasis of the 2006 reforms in protecting children and their safety demonstrates how effectiveness of the law in achieving justice for all parties is only to a limited extent as the law encourages a ‘closely connected’ family however unintentionally exposes children and the other parent to the significant concern of family and domestic violence. Very, very good point. Excellent transition. the 2006 reforms created an implication that both parents had the right to equal  50/50 time with their children, displayed as being able to create a harmful environment in the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘’parents with safety concerns are just as likely to have shared care as parents risk free, showing our system’s failure to distinguish between families for who shared care is appropriate and whom it isn’t’’ (2010). Excellent media article inclusion! this is indicative of family law reform not protecting the rights to freedom from violence that can occur within abusive relationships which can affect all parties within the family relationship. thus, justice is only achieved in certain situations where there are less concerns over parents who have a violent history as the law lacks responsiveness to protecting the needs and interests of children as well as ex-partners as there is a 64% chance of women experiencing violence (oscar, 2007). parties involved in relationship breakdowns experience minimal justice due to lacking effectiveness of legal responses.

You've got some really great arguments in here Nicki; and excellent inclusion of evidence! You've got a nice set of laws, reports and media articles that you are using to back up your argument!

My comments throughout should cover my recommendations; mostly on clarity. Remember basic syntax and grammar; it ensures your arguments are as clear as possible. At times the sentences flowed too long and this subtracts from the effectiveness of your writing. Not a huge deal, but something to consider. Ensure that you are consistently evaluating, consistently linking back to your main idea, because your evaluations are really effective but at times seem just a tad off the point. Just some simple phrasing additions, "thus demonstrating a failure of justice for children", that sort of thing, will be enough

At it's core, this is a great paragraph! Great work Nicki

[cjrig]

Hi, would I be able to get some feedback on my crime essay please? It would be greatly appreciated 

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey guys,

Would you be able to have a look at my young offenders essay and provide some feedback? I have included some comments/questions in the document. It is currently a bit long. Do you suggest removing some of the LCM or shortening my analysis?

Thanks heaps

Hey Angie! Sure thing, check the spoiler below:

Essay

Assess the effectiveness of achieving justice for young offenders

The legal system effectively reflects societal values through its recognition of the reduced criminal culpability of young offenders. It upholds the international standard of “Conventions on the Rights of the Child 1989” through the age of criminal responsibility, the rights of children when questioned or arrested, the reduced penalties provided to children as well as the focus on rehabilitation through alternative methods to court. However, the effectiveness of the legal system in achieving justice for young offenders is limited by the introduction of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2016 and the exposure and inhumane treatment of children in detention centres. This introduction feels a little bare bones; just a tad too short. Try giving some justification; why is it vital to treat young offenders fairly? What is the ultimate conclusion you will reach (do the positives outweigh the negatives, or do they remain even?). A clear judgement at the end of your Thesis is vital.

The law effectively achieves justice for young offenders by recognising their diminished criminal responsibility. Nice succinct, introductory sentence. Section 5 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act NSW 1987 entrenches the notion of Doli Incapax which is a conclusive presumption that children under the age of ten are unable to form the requisite mens rea to commit a crime and therefore cannot be held legally responsible for an offence. This legal concept becomes a rebuttable presumption for children aged 10-13 where the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the child could distinguish between right and wrong and understood the consequences of their action. Be careful to avoid 'content vomit,' the marker already knows what this legal principle entails! Focus all your words on analysis. This doctrine prevents the unjust conviction of a “naughty” child, consistent to principles of CROC to which Australia ratified in December 1990.  A bit of a less important paragraph, it's all info the marker knows already! Try ditching this and getting straight into your analytical sections.

The effectiveness of Doli Incapax is evident in R v LMW 1999 NSW where a ten-year-old was acquitted of murdering 6 year old Corey Davis due to his impaired intellectual capacity and inability to comprehend the implications of his behaviour. Whilst this protects the child from being exposed to the detrimental criminal system, many people argue that justice was not served to the victims of the offence as suggested in “Doli Incapax: Why children deserve its protection 2003 – Thomas Crofts Professor at Murdoch University School of Law.” Therefore, the law places greater emphasis on the rights and rehabilitation of the child over the values of society. Excellent breakdown of a case; succinct but excellent analysis. I think it would work better blended with the introductory sentence of above! On "many people argue," perhaps say "critics argue" instead?

The legal system effectively protects young offenders through increased rights when questioned or arrested. Swap increased for "additional" perhaps? Under Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act NSW 2002 and Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), children are granted special rights such as having the support of a responsible adult during interrogation and the access to legal aid for all young offenders. This effectively recognises the vulnerability of children, ensuring that a fair trial is achieved. Your analytical style is incredible. HERE is the legislation, HERES what it does, HERES why it is effective. So efficient, excellent stuff. However, the introduction of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2016 allows for children as young as 14 to be detained for over fourteen days without charge as a response to Farhad Jabar’s murder of Curtis Cheng in 2015. Whilst this provides greater protection and safety to society, it violates Australia’s commitment to CROC and ineffectively treats young offenders like adults. Thus, the increased protection for young offenders is hindered through the introduction of the terrorism act. See the inconsistency between your intro and conclusion? Make sure you stay on track! If you say effectiveness, don't bring in ineffectiveness.

The criminal justice system is effective in providing just penalties to young offenders, focussing on rehabilitation and avoiding imprisonment as outlined in R v GDP 1991. According to the report A picture of NSW Children 2011, detention was the penalty for 1% of cases highlighting the success of the courts in minimising children’s exposure to criminality through incarceration. Nice, more abstract piece of evidence! However, the difficulty with providing a just sentence that also reflects the community’s values is elucidated in “Balancing punishment and Rehabilitation” (SMH 2013) which highlights the need “to maximise the young offender’s prospects of rehabilitation” as well as ensure “denunciation, community protection and specific deterrence”. Ensure all paragraphs are properly concluded.

This emphasis on rehabilitation is not applied universally, demonstrating the law’s attempt to achieve the best result for individual circumstances. In R v Milat 2014, the 17 year old was sentenced to 43 years jail for murdering his friend. This “grave adult behaviour” shifted the focus of his punishment from rehabilitation to retribution and incapacitation, indicating that the law is still effective in providing just outcomes and protecting society. Conversely, many argue that imposing a severe penalty on young offenders is a gross violation of the legal system’s role in protecting children as suggested in the article “Locked up for life. Bronson Blessington was just 14 when he committed one of Australia’s most shocking crimes. But is it right to put a child behind bars indefinitely?” (SMH 2016).  I like the shade of grey you are applying here; it works because your introduction allows it to work! This depicts the narrow margin between the best interests of the child and the safety of the community. What do you mean by 'narrow margin? Like a delicate balance perhaps? Analysis is good just a little unclear! Thus, whilst the legal system has effectively encouraged rehabilitation in the sentencing of most cases dealing with young offenders, it diminishes this right on serious offenders in order to protect society. Some excellent arguments are being made in this essay; sorry for the lack of comments, but I don't have much to say!

The utilisation of bail attempts to minimise the accused’s exposure to criminal activity. Specifically for children? Just a tad vague. This is evident in the article “Boy 12, charged with rape of a girl, 6” (SMH Sep 2016) where the boy was granted bail and was permitted to go on holidays with his family. This upholds the presumption of “innocence until proven guilty” and reduces the detrimental impact of the trial on the boy though many may argue that justice is not achieved for the victim. Contrastingly, two 16 year old boys were denied bail as revealed in the article “Terrorism accused drew comparisons to Curtis Cheng murder” (ABC Oct 2016) where the threat to society overrides the best interests of the child. The 2007 amendment to the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) resulted in a 32% rise in juveniles on remand where only 16% of those on remand were given a custodial sentence, revealing the ineffectiveness of the legal system in protecting young offenders from exposure to the criminal justice system. Might be worth attributing that statistic to BOCSAR (or wherever it came from). Therefore, the issue of bail varies in effectiveness in achieving justice for different circumstances.

The welfare model’s focus on rehabilitation is reiterated through alternative methods to court. And how does this relate to justice for young offenders? The Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) aims to encourage reintegration, reduce recidivism and protect young offenders through the establishment of Youth Justice Conferences which reduced court hearings by nearly half according to BOCSAR. This effective non-custodial method of allowing the offender to confront the consequences of their actions has been criticised however. Don Weatherburn from BOCSAR claimed that the “conference regime is currently no more effective than the children’s court in reducing juvenile reoffending as 58% offend in the five years after a youth justice conference (BOCSAR 2006). Thus, the effectiveness of the legal system’s attempt to avoid court proceedings is inhibited by the practicality of the conferences. This seems a little backwards; you are saying that the courts are ineffective because the conferences are effective? Not quite clicking for me right now.

The failure of the legal system in protecting young offenders is revealed in the Four Corners Report “Australia’s Shame” (2016). Reinforced by the article “youth justice system is a slippery slope of failure” (SMH 2016), the inhumane treatment of juvenile prisoners is exposed, breaching Australia’s obligation under CROC. Furthermore, with 70% of children reoffending (A picture of NSW children 2011), the inadequacy of the current criminal justice system in rehabilitating and reducing recidivism among young offenders is illuminated. Evidently, justice is not achieved for young offenders.

The legal system attempts to protect the vulnerability and reduced liability of young offenders through the notion of the age of criminal responsibility, the increased rights of children and the focus on rehabilitative penalties. However, this effectiveness is impeded by the need to protect the wider community, the toxic culture in treating offenders as well as the unsuccessful attempt at reducing recidivism. Excellent, succinct summary of both sides. Ultimately, the use of social preventative measures alongside intensive long term, well supported rehabilitation programs is essential in achieving just outcomes for young offenders and increase their future prospects as contributors to the community.  What's your final judgement? You need to make an evaluative call as to overall effectiveness/ineffectiveness (it can be a shade of grey).

This is a fabulous essay Angie! Super strong analytical style that frequently links effectively back to the main argument. Lots of evidence, and the way you present it is extremely effective. Very succinct, very powerful, very well done!

That said, you've got a huge amount of words here. A crime essay of 1200 is a push!!

I think a play on structure could be a good choice. Instead of a lot of small chunks, try blending! One paragraph on courts/sentencing/YJC's maybe? Then another on legislation? You decide what works for you, but grouping everything together would eliminate the need for so many introductory and concluding sentences. You'd easily cut hundreds of words, and it would make your analysis seem less stop-start! This isn't a huge deal, so if you can pump out this many words in the time limit, then go for it!

My biggest recommendation on the essay itself would be making judgements very explicit. Intros and conclusions need a final statement of assessment; good? Bad? Ugly? Meh? Make your judgement clear! Ensure your judgements are also clear throughout the response too; though you are doing a great job of this already. Just the intro/conclusion stood out to me as needing that big evaluative push.

Oh, and watch for content vomit! That first paragraph didn't offer any analysis; you could probably ditch it

Great work Angie! I'd feel super confident for Legal on Wednesday, this essay is awesome!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi, would I be able to get some feedback on my crime essay please? It would be greatly appreciated 

I'll jump on this tomorrow!

[angiezhang9]

Hey Angie! Sure thing, check the spoiler below:

Essay

Assess the effectiveness of achieving justice for young offenders

The legal system effectively reflects societal values through its recognition of the reduced criminal culpability of young offenders. It upholds the international standard of “Conventions on the Rights of the Child 1989” through the age of criminal responsibility, the rights of children when questioned or arrested, the reduced penalties provided to children as well as the focus on rehabilitation through alternative methods to court. However, the effectiveness of the legal system in achieving justice for young offenders is limited by the introduction of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2016 and the exposure and inhumane treatment of children in detention centres. This introduction feels a little bare bones; just a tad too short. Try giving some justification; why is it vital to treat young offenders fairly? What is the ultimate conclusion you will reach (do the positives outweigh the negatives, or do they remain even?). A clear judgement at the end of your Thesis is vital.

The law effectively achieves justice for young offenders by recognising their diminished criminal responsibility. Nice succinct, introductory sentence. Section 5 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act NSW 1987 entrenches the notion of Doli Incapax which is a conclusive presumption that children under the age of ten are unable to form the requisite mens rea to commit a crime and therefore cannot be held legally responsible for an offence. This legal concept becomes a rebuttable presumption for children aged 10-13 where the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the child could distinguish between right and wrong and understood the consequences of their action. Be careful to avoid 'content vomit,' the marker already knows what this legal principle entails! Focus all your words on analysis. This doctrine prevents the unjust conviction of a “naughty” child, consistent to principles of CROC to which Australia ratified in December 1990.  A bit of a less important paragraph, it's all info the marker knows already! Try ditching this and getting straight into your analytical sections.

The effectiveness of Doli Incapax is evident in R v LMW 1999 NSW where a ten-year-old was acquitted of murdering 6 year old Corey Davis due to his impaired intellectual capacity and inability to comprehend the implications of his behaviour. Whilst this protects the child from being exposed to the detrimental criminal system, many people argue that justice was not served to the victims of the offence as suggested in “Doli Incapax: Why children deserve its protection 2003 – Thomas Crofts Professor at Murdoch University School of Law.” Therefore, the law places greater emphasis on the rights and rehabilitation of the child over the values of society. Excellent breakdown of a case; succinct but excellent analysis. I think it would work better blended with the introductory sentence of above! On "many people argue," perhaps say "critics argue" instead?

The legal system effectively protects young offenders through increased rights when questioned or arrested. Swap increased for "additional" perhaps? Under Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act NSW 2002 and Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), children are granted special rights such as having the support of a responsible adult during interrogation and the access to legal aid for all young offenders. This effectively recognises the vulnerability of children, ensuring that a fair trial is achieved. Your analytical style is incredible. HERE is the legislation, HERES what it does, HERES why it is effective. So efficient, excellent stuff. However, the introduction of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2016 allows for children as young as 14 to be detained for over fourteen days without charge as a response to Farhad Jabar’s murder of Curtis Cheng in 2015. Whilst this provides greater protection and safety to society, it violates Australia’s commitment to CROC and ineffectively treats young offenders like adults. Thus, the increased protection for young offenders is hindered through the introduction of the terrorism act. See the inconsistency between your intro and conclusion? Make sure you stay on track! If you say effectiveness, don't bring in ineffectiveness.

The criminal justice system is effective in providing just penalties to young offenders, focussing on rehabilitation and avoiding imprisonment as outlined in R v GDP 1991. According to the report A picture of NSW Children 2011, detention was the penalty for 1% of cases highlighting the success of the courts in minimising children’s exposure to criminality through incarceration. Nice, more abstract piece of evidence! However, the difficulty with providing a just sentence that also reflects the community’s values is elucidated in “Balancing punishment and Rehabilitation” (SMH 2013) which highlights the need “to maximise the young offender’s prospects of rehabilitation” as well as ensure “denunciation, community protection and specific deterrence”. Ensure all paragraphs are properly concluded.

This emphasis on rehabilitation is not applied universally, demonstrating the law’s attempt to achieve the best result for individual circumstances. In R v Milat 2014, the 17 year old was sentenced to 43 years jail for murdering his friend. This “grave adult behaviour” shifted the focus of his punishment from rehabilitation to retribution and incapacitation, indicating that the law is still effective in providing just outcomes and protecting society. Conversely, many argue that imposing a severe penalty on young offenders is a gross violation of the legal system’s role in protecting children as suggested in the article “Locked up for life. Bronson Blessington was just 14 when he committed one of Australia’s most shocking crimes. But is it right to put a child behind bars indefinitely?” (SMH 2016).  I like the shade of grey you are applying here; it works because your introduction allows it to work! This depicts the narrow margin between the best interests of the child and the safety of the community. What do you mean by 'narrow margin? Like a delicate balance perhaps? Analysis is good just a little unclear! Thus, whilst the legal system has effectively encouraged rehabilitation in the sentencing of most cases dealing with young offenders, it diminishes this right on serious offenders in order to protect society. Some excellent arguments are being made in this essay; sorry for the lack of comments, but I don't have much to say!

The utilisation of bail attempts to minimise the accused’s exposure to criminal activity. Specifically for children? Just a tad vague. This is evident in the article “Boy 12, charged with rape of a girl, 6” (SMH Sep 2016) where the boy was granted bail and was permitted to go on holidays with his family. This upholds the presumption of “innocence until proven guilty” and reduces the detrimental impact of the trial on the boy though many may argue that justice is not achieved for the victim. Contrastingly, two 16 year old boys were denied bail as revealed in the article “Terrorism accused drew comparisons to Curtis Cheng murder” (ABC Oct 2016) where the threat to society overrides the best interests of the child. The 2007 amendment to the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) resulted in a 32% rise in juveniles on remand where only 16% of those on remand were given a custodial sentence, revealing the ineffectiveness of the legal system in protecting young offenders from exposure to the criminal justice system. Might be worth attributing that statistic to BOCSAR (or wherever it came from). Therefore, the issue of bail varies in effectiveness in achieving justice for different circumstances.

The welfare model’s focus on rehabilitation is reiterated through alternative methods to court. And how does this relate to justice for young offenders? The Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) aims to encourage reintegration, reduce recidivism and protect young offenders through the establishment of Youth Justice Conferences which reduced court hearings by nearly half according to BOCSAR. This effective non-custodial method of allowing the offender to confront the consequences of their actions has been criticised however. Don Weatherburn from BOCSAR claimed that the “conference regime is currently no more effective than the children’s court in reducing juvenile reoffending as 58% offend in the five years after a youth justice conference (BOCSAR 2006). Thus, the effectiveness of the legal system’s attempt to avoid court proceedings is inhibited by the practicality of the conferences. This seems a little backwards; you are saying that the courts are ineffective because the conferences are effective? Not quite clicking for me right now.

The failure of the legal system in protecting young offenders is revealed in the Four Corners Report “Australia’s Shame” (2016). Reinforced by the article “youth justice system is a slippery slope of failure” (SMH 2016), the inhumane treatment of juvenile prisoners is exposed, breaching Australia’s obligation under CROC. Furthermore, with 70% of children reoffending (A picture of NSW children 2011), the inadequacy of the current criminal justice system in rehabilitating and reducing recidivism among young offenders is illuminated. Evidently, justice is not achieved for young offenders.

The legal system attempts to protect the vulnerability and reduced liability of young offenders through the notion of the age of criminal responsibility, the increased rights of children and the focus on rehabilitative penalties. However, this effectiveness is impeded by the need to protect the wider community, the toxic culture in treating offenders as well as the unsuccessful attempt at reducing recidivism. Excellent, succinct summary of both sides. Ultimately, the use of social preventative measures alongside intensive long term, well supported rehabilitation programs is essential in achieving just outcomes for young offenders and increase their future prospects as contributors to the community.  What's your final judgement? You need to make an evaluative call as to overall effectiveness/ineffectiveness (it can be a shade of grey).

This is a fabulous essay Angie! Super strong analytical style that frequently links effectively back to the main argument. Lots of evidence, and the way you present it is extremely effective. Very succinct, very powerful, very well done!

That said, you've got a huge amount of words here. A crime essay of 1200 is a push!!

I think a play on structure could be a good choice. Instead of a lot of small chunks, try blending! One paragraph on courts/sentencing/YJC's maybe? Then another on legislation? You decide what works for you, but grouping everything together would eliminate the need for so many introductory and concluding sentences. You'd easily cut hundreds of words, and it would make your analysis seem less stop-start! This isn't a huge deal, so if you can pump out this many words in the time limit, then go for it!

My biggest recommendation on the essay itself would be making judgements very explicit. Intros and conclusions need a final statement of assessment; good? Bad? Ugly? Meh? Make your judgement clear! Ensure your judgements are also clear throughout the response too; though you are doing a great job of this already. Just the intro/conclusion stood out to me as needing that big evaluative push.

Oh, and watch for content vomit! That first paragraph didn't offer any analysis; you could probably ditch it

Great work Angie! I'd feel super confident for Legal on Wednesday, this essay is awesome!

Thanks so much Jamon!! You have given me a boost of confidence for tomorrow. 

With the judgements in the intro/conclusion and the beginning/end of paragraphs, do you suggest having a definite side e.g.. Thus the law has been effective in achieving justice. Or could i simply say eg. Thus the law has been effective to a varying extent. Do you have any other suggestions on how I could phrase the judgement?

[Lauradf36]

- Watch for content vomiting; Remember that your marker is an expert! They don't need to be told much about the laws and reforms, only what you deem necessary for your analysis. At times you spent too long on just facts, not analysis.
- Be sure to make frequent links to effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Imply nothing; always make your judgements strong!
- In that third paragraph, be sure to match your introduction to what you say. You go negative but then discuss positives, and further don't overly focus on what you say you will. Be careful!
- There are a few places where I'd like a TINY BIT more evidence; more cases, a statistic/report, and definitely some media articles. Use our Notes section for some last minute resources (the from the lecture I delivered earlier this month might have some cool nuggets you can use!)!

Overall, smashed it Laura! Definitely high range response, some cut and polish is all it needs great work!

Thanks for the feedback Jamie. The thing I find difficult is, how do I make my essays long enough with pure analysis? I have to add the content to beef them up!

[jamonwindeyer]

Thanks so much Jamon!! You have given me a boost of confidence for tomorrow. 

With the judgements in the intro/conclusion and the beginning/end of paragraphs, do you suggest having a definite side e.g.. Thus the law has been effective in achieving justice. Or could i simply say eg. Thus the law has been effective to a varying extent. Do you have any other suggestions on how I could phrase the judgement?

You can do either of those things! I normally went with the "varying extent" phrasing though, simply because it meant I could discuss both sides!! I almost never said straight effective/ineffective the important thing is that even if you say "to a varying extent," you make clear one sided judgements within that. "___________ demonstrates the effectiveness of blah." "___________, however, shows that further reform is needed." That sort of interplay

[jamonwindeyer]

Thanks for the feedback Jamie. The thing I find difficult is, how do I make my essays long enough with pure analysis? I have to add the content to beef them up!

There is no reason you NEED to beef it up! If you can do the job more quickly then why not right?

That said, if you are comfortable adding a little bit of content you can, just know that it isn't going to do anything for your mark in most circumstances. Try using the space to go into a deeper explanation of your evidence instead; why is this effective? What exactly about it shows a strength? Any weaknesses to the legal system that it reveals?

[Lauradf36]

How would you personally respond to this question - "to what extent have legal and non-legal measures responded to the evolving nature of world order"?

And thanks for your help

[jamonwindeyer]

How would you personally respond to this question - "to what extent have legal and non-legal measures responded to the evolving nature of world order"?

And thanks for your help

I would probably focus on contemporary issues; since they represent the evolving nature of world order into the modern age. Like, effectiveness in responding to contemporary issues shows how well they adapt to changing nature of world order. That would be my Thesis; World Order is different now than in the 1950's when the frameworks were established, and we have to judge effectiveness on modern scenarios. Or something like that

So probably one paragraph per issue, OR maybe just one paragraph on these things with contemporary issues integrated:

- UN General Assembly
- UNSC
- IGO's
- Domestic Measures

I would also integrate non-legal measures into the response, show how they assist THESE mechanisms with their work then maybe a separate paragraph at the end as well, but I rarely did that for non-legal, I preferred the integrated approach

[Nicki]

Hey Nicki! No worries at all, your paragraph is below with comments throughout!

Spoiler

Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in achieving justice for parties involved in relationship breakdowns

The legal system in regards to dealing with relationship breakdowns demonstrates varying levels of justice being achieved depending on the party one belongs to, thus, showing somewhat effectiveness by the law. Watch expression in the topic sentence especially; make sure you are as clear as possible. Who specifically do you think suffers in this area; victims? The offender? Make this clear immediate.  The law aims to strongly replicate the risen societal value enshrined in the UN convention of the rights of the child 1989 that places necessity on ensuring the ''best interests of the child'' is paramount through enforcing the family law act 1975 (cth). Link this idea to what you've just discussed; achieving justice for all parties  in relationship breakdowns. Are the children the ones who may be neglected? this includes enduring the childs best interests are met in significant situations such as when amidst the divorce and separation of married or de-facto couples. a momentous reform by the family law system was the family law amendment (shared parental responsibility) act 2006 (cth) that established the notion that both parents have shared responsibility for the child regardless of where the parents or childs lives unless maintaining a meaningful relationship with either parent positions the child to be at risk of harm. Again, watch expression, ensure that your ideas come across as clear and succinct. this reflects the societal values that children should be able to interact with parents regularly and also recognises a parents moral right to spend adequate and quality time with their children. But how is it effective/ineffective for the rights of children? Make specific evaluations. this specifically recognising the lack of time a majority of fathers get to be with their children after separation or divorce as indicated in the australian institute of family studies report where ''only 20% of children spent an adequate amount of time with their father’'. Awesome statistic! Some really great evidence in this paragraph. the meaningful and fulfilling relationship one can form with their father is thus lost which is for a majority of children not in their best interests. however, a lack of clarity and emphasis of the 2006 reforms in protecting children and their safety demonstrates how effectiveness of the law in achieving justice for all parties is only to a limited extent as the law encourages a ‘closely connected’ family however unintentionally exposes children and the other parent to the significant concern of family and domestic violence. Very, very good point. Excellent transition. the 2006 reforms created an implication that both parents had the right to equal  50/50 time with their children, displayed as being able to create a harmful environment in the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘’parents with safety concerns are just as likely to have shared care as parents risk free, showing our system’s failure to distinguish between families for who shared care is appropriate and whom it isn’t’’ (2010). Excellent media article inclusion! this is indicative of family law reform not protecting the rights to freedom from violence that can occur within abusive relationships which can affect all parties within the family relationship. thus, justice is only achieved in certain situations where there are less concerns over parents who have a violent history as the law lacks responsiveness to protecting the needs and interests of children as well as ex-partners as there is a 64% chance of women experiencing violence (oscar, 2007). parties involved in relationship breakdowns experience minimal justice due to lacking effectiveness of legal responses.

You've got some really great arguments in here Nicki; and excellent inclusion of evidence! You've got a nice set of laws, reports and media articles that you are using to back up your argument!

My comments throughout should cover my recommendations; mostly on clarity. Remember basic syntax and grammar; it ensures your arguments are as clear as possible. At times the sentences flowed too long and this subtracts from the effectiveness of your writing. Not a huge deal, but something to consider. Ensure that you are consistently evaluating, consistently linking back to your main idea, because your evaluations are really effective but at times seem just a tad off the point. Just some simple phrasing additions, "thus demonstrating a failure of justice for children", that sort of thing, will be enough

At it's core, this is a great paragraph! Great work Nicki

thank you!!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi, would I be able to get some feedback on my crime essay please? It would be greatly appreciated 

Hey! Absolutely, your essay is attached below with comments in bold!

Spoiler

‘To what extent do laws reflect the moral and ethical standards of the community?’

Australian laws intend to reflect and enforce the ethical and moral standards of society, so that all individuals are free from harm, injustice and unfairness. Great justification for the topic, nice work. The extent to which law reflects these standards depends entirely on its ability to achieve justice and meet the needs the accused, victim and the community. Ahh, clever tie in, I like it! The moral and ethical standards of society are constantly changing, thus law must reflect these evolving standards. Law varies to an extent which is evident in the issues of sentencing in regards to ‘one punch’ laws, the new bail act and provocation. Bit of an expression issue in that last sentence; but this is great! I'd like to see a final judgement as your last sentence; a "Yes, this is the argument I'm making." Is the law effective, ineffective or in between?

In recent years, the influences of alcohol and drugs has resulted in individuals harming others and committing crimes due to the effects of these substances. The law must be able give fair sentences for individuals who commit crimes under the influence of alcohol and drugs that reflect ethical and moral standards. Fantastic introduction. However, the community outrage at the case of R v Loveridge (2013) where an intoxicated man named Kieran Loveridge committed three assaults and ‘king’ hit an 18 year old named Thomas Kelly resulting in his death, and was only sentenced to a minimum of five years and two months imprisonment, demonstrates that the law did not achieve justice for the victim or reflect moral and ethical values of the community. You can cut a bit of that case detail; it's not too bad, but the marker doesn't need much detail, try and do it in a single phrase. The article ‘Family of Thomas Kelly grateful for law reform’ (SMH 2014) stated that Kelly’s family created an online petition that demanded law reform gained 142,000 signatures, this indicates that the community disagreed with the law in dealing with Loveridge’s sentence. Nice media tie in. As a result from the pressure of the community and the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal,  Loveridge’s sentence was increased to a minimum of 10 years and two months imprisonment. The NSW government also introduced changes to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2014, which implemented an eight year mandatory sentence for one punch assaults if alcohol or drugs are involved and an increase to the maximum penalty for crimes where drugs and/or alcohol are aggravating factors instead of mitigating factors. This case demonstrates that the law may not meet the moral and ethical standards of community, however, the introduction of legislation indicates the effective implementation of law reform to reflect these standards. Excellently argued, great stuff, my only comments here would be on expression and being succinct! There were areas where you could have been a little more concise, but on the whole, fabulous

An area of of law that has failed to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society is the implementation of the new Bail Act 2013. The Bail Act 2013 replaced the Bail Act 1978 and it uses an unacceptable risk test in regard to whether the accused will fail to appear in any proceedings for the offence, commit a serious offence, endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the community, or interfere with witnesses or evidence. However, this new legislation failed in meeting the moral and ethical standards of the community in the case of R v Hawi (2014). Which moral/ethical standards specifically? Be careful not to be too broad here. The community was outraged at the fact that head bikie gang member Mahmoud Hawi, who was charged with the murder of Anthony Zervas during a 2009 Sydney Airport bikie gang brawl, was granted bail because of the new bail act that was only implemented around one month ago at the time of the case. A bit of a case detail recount; avoid this! One of the purposes of the Bail Act 2013 was to further protect the community from offenders. This purpose is undercut in the article Mahmouh Hawi granted bail on airport murder charges under new NSW laws (SMH 2014) where the mother of the victim told the media that she “feels sick and scared” and also said, “ I hope he doesn’t come anywhere near my family or the witness”. This statements clearly indicates that a family member of the victim feels that she is in danger of the offender while he is out on bail, thus defeating the purpose of the Bail Act 2013. Clearly link to the lack of protection for victim rights and the idea of moral ethical standards. This case demonstrates that law reform has failed at meeting the moral and ethical standards of society, as the community disagrees with the Hawi’s acceptance of bail and the victim’s family does not feel protected from the offender. Another effective paragraph!

The use of provocation as a partial defense to murder has given rise to debate in society of the extent to which law meets the ethical and moral standards in society. Cool! The community outrage at the case of R v Singh (2012), in which a man successfully used provocation as a partial defense against the murder of his wife, demonstrates that the law did not achieve justice for the victim or reflect moral and ethical values. The NSW government introduced the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Act 2014 (NSW) as a result of pressure from the community to decrease the success of provocation being used as defense for murder. There was also a parliamentary inquiry in response to this case. Like the law reform in R v Loveridge, this legislation represents law reform can reflect the moral and ethical values of society. Again, be specific in what you mean this.However the article Time to act - provocation must be rejected as an excuse for murder (SMH 2013) , indicates that many people in the community want the NSW government to abolish provocations instead of decreasing its success. A little more sophisticated expression would be good here, try; "indicates the communal support for the NSW government to _______." Whereas the article Losing provocation defence could harm abused women (SMH 2012) states that “women who kill their abusive husbands will be disadvantaged and are more likely to be jailed for murder if the defence of provocation is abolished.” Therefore this case demonstrates that law can have difficulties in meeting moral and ethical standards.

In conclusion, it is evident that the law has trouble on reflecting and meeting the moral and ethical standards of society as these standards are constantly evolving over time. Excellent. Certain cases has given rise to law reform in order to meet these standards, however new laws and legislation will not always meet changing moral and ethical standards as demonstrated in R v Singh. Try not to pick on specific cases you've used; give general overviews. Overall the law at some extent does meet the moral and ethical standards of society, but it still has difficulties in achieving justice and fairness for individuals, victims and offenders. Excellent conclusion.

This is an excellent essay cjrig! Fantastic arguments, excellent evidence, well structured, it's really great stuff! Most of my comments throughout are nitpicks; on the whole this is excellent stuff! Watch for wasting words on unnecessary case details (it will save you time in the exam I hope), and be sure that if you use the balancing rights of victim/offender/society idea in the intro, that it is carried fully through the response. You didn't mention it heaps after your Thesis and 1st paragraph; it falls away just a tad and becomes only an implied thing (in my opinion). Be explicit

You should be super confident though; this is a great response and I'm sure you'll smash your exam tomorrow!

[cjrig]

Hey! Absolutely, your essay is attached below with comments in bold!

Spoiler

‘To what extent do laws reflect the moral and ethical standards of the community?’

Australian laws intend to reflect and enforce the ethical and moral standards of society, so that all individuals are free from harm, injustice and unfairness. Great justification for the topic, nice work. The extent to which law reflects these standards depends entirely on its ability to achieve justice and meet the needs the accused, victim and the community. Ahh, clever tie in, I like it! The moral and ethical standards of society are constantly changing, thus law must reflect these evolving standards. Law varies to an extent which is evident in the issues of sentencing in regards to ‘one punch’ laws, the new bail act and provocation. Bit of an expression issue in that last sentence; but this is great! I'd like to see a final judgement as your last sentence; a "Yes, this is the argument I'm making." Is the law effective, ineffective or in between?

In recent years, the influences of alcohol and drugs has resulted in individuals harming others and committing crimes due to the effects of these substances. The law must be able give fair sentences for individuals who commit crimes under the influence of alcohol and drugs that reflect ethical and moral standards. Fantastic introduction. However, the community outrage at the case of R v Loveridge (2013) where an intoxicated man named Kieran Loveridge committed three assaults and ‘king’ hit an 18 year old named Thomas Kelly resulting in his death, and was only sentenced to a minimum of five years and two months imprisonment, demonstrates that the law did not achieve justice for the victim or reflect moral and ethical values of the community. You can cut a bit of that case detail; it's not too bad, but the marker doesn't need much detail, try and do it in a single phrase. The article ‘Family of Thomas Kelly grateful for law reform’ (SMH 2014) stated that Kelly’s family created an online petition that demanded law reform gained 142,000 signatures, this indicates that the community disagreed with the law in dealing with Loveridge’s sentence. Nice media tie in. As a result from the pressure of the community and the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal,  Loveridge’s sentence was increased to a minimum of 10 years and two months imprisonment. The NSW government also introduced changes to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2014, which implemented an eight year mandatory sentence for one punch assaults if alcohol or drugs are involved and an increase to the maximum penalty for crimes where drugs and/or alcohol are aggravating factors instead of mitigating factors. This case demonstrates that the law may not meet the moral and ethical standards of community, however, the introduction of legislation indicates the effective implementation of law reform to reflect these standards. Excellently argued, great stuff, my only comments here would be on expression and being succinct! There were areas where you could have been a little more concise, but on the whole, fabulous

An area of of law that has failed to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society is the implementation of the new Bail Act 2013. The Bail Act 2013 replaced the Bail Act 1978 and it uses an unacceptable risk test in regard to whether the accused will fail to appear in any proceedings for the offence, commit a serious offence, endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the community, or interfere with witnesses or evidence. However, this new legislation failed in meeting the moral and ethical standards of the community in the case of R v Hawi (2014). Which moral/ethical standards specifically? Be careful not to be too broad here. The community was outraged at the fact that head bikie gang member Mahmoud Hawi, who was charged with the murder of Anthony Zervas during a 2009 Sydney Airport bikie gang brawl, was granted bail because of the new bail act that was only implemented around one month ago at the time of the case. A bit of a case detail recount; avoid this! One of the purposes of the Bail Act 2013 was to further protect the community from offenders. This purpose is undercut in the article Mahmouh Hawi granted bail on airport murder charges under new NSW laws (SMH 2014) where the mother of the victim told the media that she “feels sick and scared” and also said, “ I hope he doesn’t come anywhere near my family or the witness”. This statements clearly indicates that a family member of the victim feels that she is in danger of the offender while he is out on bail, thus defeating the purpose of the Bail Act 2013. Clearly link to the lack of protection for victim rights and the idea of moral ethical standards. This case demonstrates that law reform has failed at meeting the moral and ethical standards of society, as the community disagrees with the Hawi’s acceptance of bail and the victim’s family does not feel protected from the offender. Another effective paragraph!

The use of provocation as a partial defense to murder has given rise to debate in society of the extent to which law meets the ethical and moral standards in society. Cool! The community outrage at the case of R v Singh (2012), in which a man successfully used provocation as a partial defense against the murder of his wife, demonstrates that the law did not achieve justice for the victim or reflect moral and ethical values. The NSW government introduced the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Act 2014 (NSW) as a result of pressure from the community to decrease the success of provocation being used as defense for murder. There was also a parliamentary inquiry in response to this case. Like the law reform in R v Loveridge, this legislation represents law reform can reflect the moral and ethical values of society. Again, be specific in what you mean this.However the article Time to act - provocation must be rejected as an excuse for murder (SMH 2013) , indicates that many people in the community want the NSW government to abolish provocations instead of decreasing its success. A little more sophisticated expression would be good here, try; "indicates the communal support for the NSW government to _______." Whereas the article Losing provocation defence could harm abused women (SMH 2012) states that “women who kill their abusive husbands will be disadvantaged and are more likely to be jailed for murder if the defence of provocation is abolished.” Therefore this case demonstrates that law can have difficulties in meeting moral and ethical standards.

In conclusion, it is evident that the law has trouble on reflecting and meeting the moral and ethical standards of society as these standards are constantly evolving over time. Excellent. Certain cases has given rise to law reform in order to meet these standards, however new laws and legislation will not always meet changing moral and ethical standards as demonstrated in R v Singh. Try not to pick on specific cases you've used; give general overviews. Overall the law at some extent does meet the moral and ethical standards of society, but it still has difficulties in achieving justice and fairness for individuals, victims and offenders. Excellent conclusion.

This is an excellent essay cjrig! Fantastic arguments, excellent evidence, well structured, it's really great stuff! Most of my comments throughout are nitpicks; on the whole this is excellent stuff! Watch for wasting words on unnecessary case details (it will save you time in the exam I hope), and be sure that if you use the balancing rights of victim/offender/society idea in the intro, that it is carried fully through the response. You didn't mention it heaps after your Thesis and 1st paragraph; it falls away just a tad and becomes only an implied thing (in my opinion). Be explicit

You should be super confident though; this is a great response and I'm sure you'll smash your exam tomorrow!

Thank you so much for you help and feedback, Jamon! 

[mattmorley]

Hi Jamon, Could you have a look at this and give me any feedback you can. The Essay and notification of task is attached to give you a guidline of what is been looked for
Its due tommorow so any help is much appreciated

Thanks

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi Jamon, Could you have a look at this and give me any feedback you can. The Essay and notification of task is attached to give you a guidline of what is been looked for
Its due tommorow so any help is much appreciated

Thanks

Hey Matt! I'm happy to give it a read. I'd normally give more detail but since it's due tomorrow (and I'm on exams at the moment) I'll have to be a little less thorough!

Your Speech

Good Morning Sir and class , today I will be talking about Homosexual discrimination in reagrds to legal and non legal methods of resolving disputes aswell as key formal statements regarding the issue. I think you'll want a bit more of an introduction here. Give a more detailed definition of the issue and its scope. Why is this an issue worth discussing? What areas of this topic will you be discussing in the response? This is especially necessary since you've chosen an issue that ISN'T in the syllabus; you need to justify why this is a human rights issue to begin with. Right now it's just a discrimination issue; you need to link it to human rights immediately.

The UDHR is a key formal statement in the protection of individual rights. The UDHR obtains a significant relationship between itself and homosexual rights that involves the UDHR stating through article 2 that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language”. This article has a distant effect on Homosexual discrimination as this article speaks about how individuals are to be free from discrimination and shouldn’t be effected by discrimination. In terms of expression here; you've used discrimination three times in the same sentence. May stand out like a sore thumb. This effects homosexual discrimination as people who are homosexual shouldn’t have to face discrimination in the form of marriage or abuse. Through the UDHR specifically article 2, homosexual discrimination is restricted. Some good points; but I think your argument is a little weak. You say the UDHR has an article which prevents discrimination, and you say that this restricts homosexual discrimination. However, this is a little self apparent. This is a speech on a human rights issue, and you've still not given me any justification that the issue exists at all.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has a distinct relationship with homosexual rights.  Article 26 of the statement states that “all Persons ae equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law”, this article effects homosexual discrimination in the forms of equal treatment of homosexual’s persons as well as the removal of discrimination. The case of Young vs Australia shows the effect of this article as discrimination faced by same sex couples that were veterans were in breach of article 26 of the ICCPR. The ICCPR also includes articles Article 17 and Article 23 which speak of the right to privacy and the right to marry and start a family of which both effect homosexual discrimination in the forms of cessing discrimination faced to these people in the forms of being unable to marry and the discrimination faced by same sex couples in the form of privacy. A little expression issue in that last sentence; but good work integrating a case. I'd like to see more of that.

The International Covenant on economic, Social and Cultural rights is the main treaty dealing with the economic, social and cultural rights of all people. The Document has a direct relationship with homosexual discrimination as article 2-2 states “The rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination regardless of religion, sex, or gender”, this effects homosexual rights as this means that same sex couples should not be discriminated against in any form, through this this means that same sex couples should feel safe and free from discrimination

The media play an integral role in regarding to homosexual rights that of which the media is effective and ineffective in different aspects in regards to homosexual discrimination. “NSW Police accused of homosexual discrimination after targeting gay officers in drug sting” SMH 2016-10-08, states how the NSW Police discriminate against Homosexual individuals the form of targeting only homosexuals in an internal task force for illicit drug use. Expression issue there. The Media successfully raised public awareness through sharing with the public the discrimination faced thus through society knowing about the issue and being outraged inadvetadly placing immense pressure discrimination. Expression issue there; it's a good idea you are raising, make sure you are conveying it clearly. The media is an non legal method of resolving disputes that is effective in the forms of accessibility as anyone can access media resealed articles through online and paper resources that allows the media to successfully raise public awareness on homosexual discrimination effectively and efficiently. I feel like that sentence would be more suited as an introduction? Ie - we should be told it's a non-legal response immediately.

The media also has ineffective aspects in resolving homosexual discrimination as the media is ineffective in enforceability the media is unable to enforce laws and prosecute offenders as the media is limited to placing placing pressure meaning that the media is unable to convict individual or homosexual discrimination thereby being ineffective in regards to enforceability. Again, watch expression. You are raising good points but they don't come across in the best way, I had to read that sentence a few times to click with what you were saying. Read your speech aloud, listen for these sorts of issues. the media is also ineffective in the forms of meeting society’s needs the media is unable legally outlawing homosexual discrimination due to the media being unable the prosecute and convict offenders therefore being ineffective in meeting society’s needs therefore being unable to achieve justice to society. As above; good points, but you can't use 'therefore' more than one in a sentence without impacting on your clarity.

Non Governmental Organisations play a key role in placing pressure on the legal system in regards to homosexual discrimination of which are mainly ineffective in resolving discrimination. The NGO of Australian Marriage equality organisation seeks to reduce homosexual discrimination in the form of not allowing seem sex marriage. NGO’s are ineffective in the forms of enforceability as NGO’s such as The Australian Marriage equality organisation are unable to force discrimination laws as well as create anti discrimination laws thereby being ineffective in regards to enforceability, NGO’s are also ineffective in meeting society’s needs as these organisations are unsuccessful in amending any Marriage equality laws o far highlighting their ineffectiveness. NGO’s are although effective informs of accessibility as The Australian Marriage equality website in easily accessed by the internet that it readily available to society that is viewed thousands of times each day highlighting that it reaches a wide audience that allows for society to be educated on homosexual discrimination that of which is effective in placing pressure on the legal system due to the easily accessed information on the topic. You are integrating the criteria quite well; enforceability, accessibility; good stuff!

Legislation is a legal mechanism that is extremely effective in ceasing homosexual discrimination. Legislation is effective in creating laws that effectively restrict discrimination and ably assist NGO’s in promoting protection towards homosexuals against discrimination.  The Anti discrimination act 1977 NSW and the Human rights and equal opportunity commission act 1986 commonwealth are two pieces of legalisation which prohibits discrimination in regards to sexual preferences. Legislation as a legal method is extremely effective as it is enforceable as these pieces of legalisation are protected under law which results in indictments to offenders which results in protection to same sex couples highlighting the effective of legislation in regards to enforceability.  The case of Toonen vs Australia, legislation being the Anti discrimination act was utilised by toonen to win his homosexual discrimination cases also highlighting the effectiveness of legalisation in the forms of enforceability. You are better off using this case to say that laws can be created to overcome human rights issues! Toonen v Australia went to the UNHRC and spurred the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act.  Legislations is also extremely effective in meeting society’s needs and achieving justice to victims as the laws created through legalisation aim to achieve the greater good for society that in turn meets the needs of society through not allowing injustice to occur to same sex couples as well as protecting society. Through legislation being effective in enforceability, meeting society’s needs and achieving justice to victims, homosexual discrimination can be reduced. This was your best paragraph so far. Good points raised in an organised fashion; good work!

The Courts and tribunals are extremely effective legal methods of reducing homosexual discrimination and upholding human rights. The Courts and tribunals effectively evaluate on cases regarding homosexual discrimination and play a significant role in resolving disputes regarding homosexual rights.  The case of Toonen vs Australia demonstrates the effective of Courts as the court case effectively enforced key human rights and commonwealth laws to allow toonen to not be discriminated against for being homosexual. As above, be careful to specify what court. This wasn't a case heard in an Australian court. Courts are extremely effective as they successfully enforce laws and have the ability to prosecute offenders as well as make decisions on cases based around laws that as a result effectively achieves justice to the victim and society. Courts and tribunal are also significantly effective in upholding the rule of law as the courts treat everyone the same and no one no matter what their social status, sex, or religion is treated differently, this means that courts allow all homosexual people to a fair trial. Good. Courts and tribunals are also significantly effective in regards to meeting society’s needs as they offer a fair and accessible way of resolving disputes that allows homosexual people of all aspects of life a way in which they can challenge their discrimination which in turn meets the needs of society. Although, Courts and tribunals are fairly ineffective in regards to resource efficiency as they are considerably expensive in regards to other options that means that the court system isn’t efficient as well as court cases taking long amounts of time that means that homosexual cases can be delayed placing extra pressure on the legal system. Overall, Courts and tribunals are an effective way of resolving homosexual discrimination. Some more examples are needed to make the argument in this paragraph more powerful.

Internal review is a somewhat effective way of reducing discrimination faced by homosexuals as it allows for a review of decisions made by government agency’s and evaluates if the decision was unfair or unjust. Internal review is effective in the terms of resource efficiency as this method is the cheapest and quickest way of fighting discrimination compared to other legal methods. This means it is effective as complaints can be dealt with quickly and efficiently aiding all of society. Internal Review is also significantly effective in regards to responsiveness as Internal reviews occur quickly after a complaint is made in comparison to other methods meaning it is effective in quickly resolving disputes which results in an increase in responsiveness and efficiency. Internal reviews are also easily accessed by all members of society as anyone can apply for a review regardless of income, gender or race resulting in a fair and equal way of challenging decisions highlighting the effectiveness in regards to accessibility. Although Internal reviews are ineffective in meeting society’s needs as they can sometimes be biased as they can be conducted by members of the same department meaning that biases and incorrect decision can occur. This last paragraph would be much better replaced with a conclusion. You need to summarise your arguments, come to some final conclusion!

Have a read of the comments in your speech above. Because it's due tomorrow, I'll just give two key pieces of feedback in addition:

1 - Read your speech aloud to yourself or a family member, and try and spot sentences that don't 'sound' quite right. You have numerous sentences in your response that need to be separated into different sections, or have word choices rethought. If you read aloud, or even have someone else read it aloud to you, you will notice. Any point where you stumble, or if someone goes "Wait, huh?, you need to rework it.
2- This doesn't read like a speech on human rights. It reads like a speech on discrimination, not necessarily human rights. To improve this, you need to set up the issue more properly in your introduction. You need to link more clearly between the issue of homosexual discrimination and human rights; it's only halfway there for me. Further, don't be afraid to integrate articles from the UDHR,ICCPR,ICESCR into your response to really push this.

You are evaluating fairly well (and integrating the criteria nicely), and have a good understanding of the issue. However, you need to express your ideas more clearly. Oh, and try and include more evidence! More cases, more statistics, more media articles; if you can