HSC Stuff > Marking Thread Archives
Free Legal Essay Marking!
jamonwindeyer:
--- Quote from: Booboo123 on March 23, 2016, 10:14:33 am ---Hello , I was wondering if it's alright if you mark my lockout essay?
I'm not sure if I'm answering the question properly and it's not finished yet.
Cheers. :)
--- End quote ---
Hey Booboo123! Sure thing, I've popped your essay below with some feedback!
SpoilerAssess the effectiveness of New South Wales’ On Punch legislation and lock out laws on reducing alcohol fuelled assaults
As the controversial concern for the vision of Sydney’s vibrant nightlife increases, the need for reducing alcohol fuelled assaults become more important, as it’s a main factor in protecting society from harm. However, the input of media and community outcry of two atrocious deaths in Sydney CBD, resulted in a ‘rush’ of NSW’s one punch legislation and lockouts laws, have become somewhat ineffective as not enough measures are taken to ensure the needs are met for the community. I love the arguments you are making in this introduction! I think you should list what your body paragraphs are about, and also, maybe define what you view as "successful" legislation... Is it fair? Enforceable? Communally popular? Etc
On 21 January 2014, the government introduced a range of new measures to tackle drug and alcohol related violence and over the course of two years the amendment has stirred a society backlash on the ineffectiveness of dealing with alcohol fuelled assaults. I think you need a topic sentence that sets the stage a little better. If this paragraph sets up the history of the legislation, say this a little more clearly.Prior to all the backlash, there was already a controversial debate on whether the introduction of lockout laws are effective. Watch your tense here, you swap from past to present. This is clearly demonstrated in the media article “Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Assault and intoxication) Bill 2014 and Liquor Amendment Bill 2014.” Rather than reference a media article like this, you would have been better off using the laws themselves!During the reading of the bill Hon. Michael Gallacher has announced that ‘more needs to be done to improve the safety and amenity of the Sydney central business district’ particularly during night time and to cover those safety issues. One of those ideas to deal with these measures were the Government’s tough and comprehensive package. The package is practically a policy designed to address the escalating problem of alcohol-related violence and coward punch attacks in Sydney CBD, and one of those points in the package is the precinct-wide freeze on liquor licences for new pubs and clubs which now refers to the Liquor Amendment Act 2014. I also think you need a conclusion. "Therefore, BLAH" or "Thus it can be seen that BLAH". Just something a little more conclusive/final.
The core of the Liquor Amendment Bill relies on the imposition of lockouts and last drinks in the expanded CBD and any other area that the regulations subsequently specify it’s the underlying ideology of the bill is that since it worked in Newcastle it will work in Sydney.Check your syntax here! It’s the assumption that since the introduction of lockouts and last drinks reduced violence in Newcastle it will also have the same result in Sydney. The assumption of this is by far contradicting as today the enforcement of the Liquor Amendment Act 2014 imposes restrictions on the lifestyle choices of people who want to be entertained while at the same time would like to have a drink at 3.00am. It can be argued that there’s an undeniable impact on the night time economy, where businesses are being penalised whom they had nothing to do with the recent violence. In a sense thousands of people will no longer want to stay in licensed premises past 3am once alcohol is no longer served but instead will try to go home while being out in the street intoxicated. Especially when 3am is the time for taxi changeover, more people will be more upfront to start a fight as less transport is available and this is a problem the government needs to address. It does not stop alcohol fuelled violence at that time but instead it increases the likelihood of violence during the 3-5am period. This is lots of awesome opinion here, I love it! But you aren't backing anything up with evidence. This is the difference between an academic essay and an opinion piece: Evidence. Cases, laws, media articles. Try to come up with some of these things which support your argument!
Yet, what’s the point of a 3am lockout if there’s a casino that can stay open and trading all night?
The fact that the casino’s boss announce that the Sydney’s Star Casino is ‘one of the safest venues in the world’ means that it should not be part of the lockout laws is quite confronting, as crime figures has demonstrated that the Pyrmont venue is one of the most if not dangerous in the state. This can be seen in the Sydney Morning Herald article “The Star doesn’t need Sydney’s lockout laws, says casino boss.” The Star casino continues to enjoy exemption from the late-night laws which enforce 1.30 am lockouts and 3am last drinks, which his claim contradicts that of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research which demonstrated that during the last 2 years, alcohol related assaults has risen by 46 per cent, an average of 6.3 assaults per month. This associates to 75 assaults, which is three times as much as the central Sydney nightclub Ivy, which was named as the state’s most violent area in 2014. It’s this that the lockout laws are ineffective as people who often visited the Sydney’s CBD area will just head to other areas that are exempted from these laws that is deemed entertaining while at the same time be able to have drinks, and the result of this has led to a quite significant increase of alcohol-fuelled violence in Pyrmont. This is what I needed above, statistics! Fabulous! The legislation should not only be used in just the Sydney CBD district but be implemented right across the State, preventing people moving to other pubs, however it’s unlikely that will happen especially to the Star’s casino, due to the fact that it revenues large sums of money which in turn is given to the government. Hence the lockout laws are quite ineffective, as restricting the alcohol availability would make people be more eager to get drunk whilst at home or force them to move to another area increasing the trend of assault in the area.Although I love the arguments you are making with reference to the casinos and governments, try to keep this essay objective. The tone is a little too emotive, in my opinion.
On the other hand, the lockout laws have curbed alcohol related violence since their imposition but only in areas that have been potentially been known as a threat to society safety. This, for example, is a better topic sentence! This is clearly conveyed in The Age’s article “Why all Sydneysiders should be grateful for the lockout”, where a study has released that in Newcastle, the sixth biggest city in Australia, demonstrated that the city struggled with high levels of alcohol-fuelled violence for a number of years, until in 2008, the city decided to reduce the alcohol-related violence measures must be implemented and this was to stop selling alcohol in a small area of the city after 3am instead of the previous 5am. This modest two-hour decrease in the availability of alcohol is effective as it has reduced alcohol-related violence in Newcastle since March 2008 by more than 50 per cent. This new impact has later increased the number of smaller bars and licensed restaurants as a means of adapting to the new lockout laws and now Newcastle’s nightlife is much safer, diverse and prosperous. This can be further reinforced as according to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOSCAR), assaults declined more than 40 per cent in Kings Cross and 20 per cent in Sydney’s CBD after the alcohol availability was restricted in February 2014. The cities experience of reduced trading hours and availability reflects that of international cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as progressive countries such as Norway and the Netherlands. The data is clear that effective and modest earlier last-drink measures and a safer and vibrant nightlife with plenty of jobs can comfortably co-exist. This last paragraph was a little more on the money for me! Stats mixed with your arguments makes everything a little more sophisticated, I'd still like to see some laws/cases though, and check your sentence structure in some areas!
Missing a conclusion too (though I know you aren't done yet), try adding a summary of your essay! What have you discussed, what is your final judgement?
What I love about this essay is that you SMASH the opinion part of it. Your opinions are clear and fairly well organised too, awesome! You use statistics really well also.
My main point for improvement at the moment for you would be to work on inclusion of LCTMR (Laws, Cases, Treaties, Media, Reports). These are what backs up your argument, turns it from an opinion text to an academic text. You NEED these to make your points properly. Right now, you are doing Media and Reports (Stats) really, really well. Try to incorporate some more legislation in there (especially since the focus of this question is on legislation, you should be able to discuss the laws in depth). You should also be able to find some cases, R v Loveridge (2013) would be a good start! ;D
The hard part of your essay is done, you have the opinion! While there are also some structural issues and other minor things to fix, getting some more LCTMR evidence will get this essay really flowing well!
In terms of your specific concern about answering the question: I think you are definitely on the way to assessing (providing judgement), but perhaps you need to focus on the laws themselves a little more? In general, it is great, but maybe a little more detail is required to make it amazing. This will come naturally from including more evidence.
Great work Booboo123, thanks for posting, and I hope this feedback helps! ;D
anotherworld2b:
hello I was wondering if I could have essay marked :)
I was quite confused how to do this essay so all comments are appreciated
jamonwindeyer:
--- Quote from: anotherworld2b on May 17, 2016, 06:04:24 pm ---hello I was wondering if I could have essay marked :)
I was quite confused how to do this essay so all comments are appreciated
--- End quote ---
Hey there another world!! Absolutely, I've attached the essay below with comments throughout! ;D
Question: Assess the effectiveness of common law and the similarities and differences between statue and common law.
SpoilerLaw controls matters of human activity and regulates our lives. There are two sources of law that exist within our community. These two sources of law are the statute laws of Commonwealth and state parliaments and the common law principles, applied through precedent, of our federal and state courts in Australia. Common law is defined as law that is based on previous judgments of the courts that are known as precedents. I actually feel like that sentence is enough of a definition of the two laws! Your legal teacher knows what they are after all, the focus for Legal essays should always be analysis and evaluation. We don't need long descriptions of concepts, your reader knows it all already (though this question will probably require more content than most other essays). Statutory laws are written laws passed by legislature and government of a country. This essay will assess the effectiveness of common law and the similarities and differences between statute and common law by taking into consideration the fulfillment of the functions of law. This is a matter of preference, but I'm not a large fan of referring to the essay in this manner. Addressing the question so directly is a little bit off-putting I think, do what you feel. However, what I would recommend is making some sort of judgement here. Is common law effective or not? Make your opinion clear now ready to back up later. Finally, I'd like you to list the things you will be discussing in the essay paragraphs, this is an essential structural feature for a HSC essay.
Common law and statute law share distinct similarities that include the ideal of the fulfillment of the functions of law in Australian society. Try to integrate some statement about the effectiveness of common law into all of your topic sentences! Make the focus on your evaluation, the essay becomes more sophisticated that way. Some key similarities that are shared between the two sources of law are that both are subject to the rule of law and the fact that both have to submit to the constitution. The requirement of the two sources of law abiding to the Australian Constitution is of utmost importance because the Constitution is the set of basic law that provides rights for all Australians, such as freedom of religion and the right to compensation if the government acquires your property by which our nation is governed. It is important to the nation that the functions of the law are fulfilled in our society. Collectively, the law should fulfill particular functions whether they are common or statute law. Both statute and common law are binding on the Australian people. I personally believe, even for this question, this is too much content description without evaluating the effectiveness of common law. This is the focus of the question. So, try to integrate your evaluation of common law WHILE comparing and contrasting it to statute law. These functions include providing a structure for the creation, enforcement and alteration of law in accordance with wishes of society which is reflected in the Australian Parliament's response by passing the ‘Native TItle Act’ (1993) by the Keating government followed by the Howard government later passed the ‘Native Title Amendment Act (1998)’.Good example! This particular event in Australian history finally acknowledged the ancient values held by the Indigenous Australians in the community by overturning of the term ‘terra nullius’ and the use of the previous precedent of the Gove Land Rights Case (1971). This particular event is reflective of how Common law and statute law both are used to enforce and alter law in accordance with the wishes of the community which is evident the creation of a new precedent principle by courts and new Act made by Parliament. Hence, common and state law evidently share distinct similarities. This paragraph covers the similarities and differences well, but I'm not getting evaluation yet.
Common law and statute law have distinct differences. Statute law is made by parliament, whereas common law is made by courts. One difference is that statute law has parliamentary sovereignty over common law. This means that statute law will overrule common law in cases where they clash.What effect does this have on the effect of common law? In Australia the laws made by our parliaments have sovereignty over all other laws, in particular common law. This means that the parliament can either enact statutes that endorse common law principles articulated by the courts and apply them to cases. Can parliaments apply statutes to cases? Parliament can also allow common law to govern certain aspects of society and pass statues complementing or partially regulating areas of common law. So are you saying common law works best in conjunction with statute law? However, parliament can also enact statutes overturning common law principles on the basis that they do not adequately or accurately reflect the values of society. Make sure every paragraph is concluded appropriately!
The effectiveness of common law is reflected in the fact that it has been the basis of workable legal tradition for many centuries. Oh okay, now I see what you've done structurally, I do think this would work better integrated through the essay though! It has several advantages that includes the requirement that courts follow precedent means that similar cases are treated alike and this creates fairness in the legal system. Do you have any examples. This would be a great time for a case (I know there is one below, but this is a perfect place for one!) Another advantages Legal advisers can provide reliable advice to clients by referring to precedents set in previous cases. Another advantage is the ability of superior courts to create new precedents allows the law to adjust to changed circumstances (all change does not need to come from statute). Is statute slower? Less enforceable? What specifically are you driving at here? Common law also creates a basis for unbiased decisions which are based on legal expertise rather than opinion. One particular case in which the effectiveness of common law is evident is the the 'Snail in the bottle' case which illustrates how common law can be modified and develop legal principles that can be applied to the modern world. This particular case demonstrates how precedents can be changed according to a particular case that the adjudicator oversees. GOod thing? Bad thing? These advantages of common law reflect the the importance of functions of law such as providing a structure for the creation, enforcement and alteration of the law in accordance with the wishes of society and containing a degree of flexibility in its application to cover the various situations that may arise in its enforcement. Hence, the effectiveness of common law is reflected and supported by the clear advantages and the fulfillment of the functions of law.
Statute and common law are the two sources of law which coexist with each other. This allows law to effective by fulfilling the functions of law. Your conclusion needs a little more 'meat' than this. It should be 3-4 sentences. Restate the main idea(s) of the essay. List what you've discussed. Summarise your final viewpoint.
This is a pretty unusual question because it specifically demands content as well as evaluation and analysis, it is quite different to what you'll get in the HSC. So, it is important to balance your content with your evaluation, and where possible, do them simultaneously. I think this essay is a little too content focused, try to really develop the argument of your essay. What judgement do you make about common law? Make this obvious, establish it at the start, and thread it through your topic sentences and paragraphs. I like that you've structured the essay in this manner, however, I think it shifted the focus too much towards content and too far from evaluation. Have a read of this and try and craft a Thesis which is succinct and summarises your opinion on the subject matter.
That said, what you did describe was good. It was a good summary of the content in this part of the course. I would have liked more examples to display your points, but you covered most of the things I'd expect you to cover! Shifting the focus to the evaluative part of the question, and changing your paragraphs to suit this new focus, would be the main improvement I would suggest. Besides this, make sure every paragraph is introduced and concluded properly, make sure all sentences read well, and integrate a few more examples ;D
I hope this helps!! ;D
anotherworld2b:
Thank you so much for your comments :D
Your help is extremely appreciated ;D
For para 1 I incorporated a case example to explain how statute and common law are similar and spent about 3-4 sentences doing this. How would I shorten these sentences while keeping the information? Is this way of explaining the similarities effective and in enough depth? Would I need more similarities for paragraph one?
For evaluation do you basically say that:
Drawn from the involvement of both statute and common law in the 'Native Title Act' (1993) and ‘Native Title Amendment Act (1998) the effectiveness of common law in creating a new precedent is supported by fulfilling the function of a altering the law in accordance with wishes of society specifically for Indigenous Australians.
For common law I am kind of confused on what aspects to say to support either its ineffective or effective...
If I wanted to integrate similarities and differences in paragraphs 1 and 2 would this be more effective in answer this question?
Would you explain 1 similarity they share and how and then explain 1 difference they have?
For differences: I basically know that there's a difference in sovereignty (statute over common law), common law made in courts and statute made in parliament. I couldn't find any other differences or examples of cases to use to explain these points.
jamonwindeyer:
--- Quote from: anotherworld2b on May 18, 2016, 09:07:19 am ---Thank you so much for your comments :D
Your help is extremely appreciated ;D
For para 1 I incorporated a case example to explain how statute and common law are similar and spent about 3-4 sentences doing this. How would I shorten these sentences while keeping the information?
--- End quote ---
It's about cutting out the fluff and only leaving the information that is necessary for your analysis, keeping the focus there. For example, "This particular event in Australian history finally acknowledged the ancient values held by the Indigenous Australians in the community by" is unnecessary, you can literally replace it with the word "The" and the meaning remains the same.
--- Quote from: anotherworld2b on May 18, 2016, 09:07:19 am ---For evaluation do you basically say that:
Drawn from the involvement of both statute and common law in the 'Native Title Act' (1993) and ‘Native Title Amendment Act (1998) the effectiveness of common law in creating a new precedent is supported by fulfilling the function of a altering the law in accordance with wishes of society specifically for Indigenous Australians.
--- End quote ---
Pretty much! That is nice and concise and focused on evaluation, excellent.
--- Quote from: anotherworld2b on May 18, 2016, 09:07:19 am ---For common law I am kind of confused on what aspects to say to support either its ineffective or effective...
--- End quote ---
The effectiveness of common law is based on how it is applied in judicial cases, and in this question, is it applied more effectively or less effectively than statute law? Is a precedent effective in achieving just outcomes in cases? Is a precedent restrictive for future decisions? Are precedents more effective than laws? In which circumstances?
--- Quote from: anotherworld2b on May 18, 2016, 09:07:19 am ---If I wanted to integrate similarities and differences in paragraphs 1 and 2 would this be more effective in answer this question?
Would you explain 1 similarity they share and how and then explain 1 difference they have?
For differences: I basically know that there's a difference in sovereignty (statute over common law), common law made in courts and statute made in parliament. I couldn't find any other differences or examples of cases to use to explain these points.
--- End quote ---
I think what would address these issues is re-thinking your structure. Try looking at different legal areas and comparing the approach of statute law and common law in that area. For example, domestic violence. How are laws applied in this area? How has precedent been applied? Which is better and why? This will allow you to document differences between the two and judge the effectiveness of common law in comparison to statute law. Do this three times, different theme per paragraph. It might be a better fit for you ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version