HSC Stuff > Marking Thread Archives

Free Legal Essay Marking!

<< < (65/69) > >>

mohanedibrahim1:
Hello there, i was wondering whats the best way to prepare for the world order essay for the HSC i'm assuming memorizing all the evidence and thank you.

fantasticbeasts3:

--- Quote from: mohanedibrahim1 on September 30, 2017, 03:22:50 pm ---Hello there, i was wondering whats the best way to prepare for the world order essay for the HSC i'm assuming memorizing all the evidence and thank you.

--- End quote ---

hi! i don't do world order, sorry, but a quick tip: memorising evidence is a good way to prepare, but writing out practice responses and submitting them to this thread once you've reached 50 posts, or emailing them to your teacher is even better! also, if you're asking a question, there are question threads for each subject, such as the legal one here.

jamonwindeyer:

--- Quote from: Mary_a on September 27, 2017, 02:47:09 pm ---Written under exam conditions, please dear god help. I can write a great English essay, but for some reason, not a legal essay. (Also, I typed up the written essay.) Thank you, thank you, thank you. Also, expect a law reform one soon and a family one. Thank you!


Also, is it now 50 posts? If so, how many more do i need now if I don't qualify for this one, or want to qualify for another one? Thank you

--- End quote ---

Hey Mary! Essay is attached with feedback in bold ;D


SpoilerEvaluate The Effectiveness of the Criminal Trial Process as a Means of Achieving Justice:

The criminal trial process is an intricate and complex system that incorporates specific areas such as the jury system, complete and partial defences and the adversarial process. These elements attempt to achieve justice by trying to balance the rights of the offenders, victims and society. This introduction is fairly short, you'd prefer to have a smaller body and really setup your essay properly here!

The jury system attempts to achieve justice in the criminal trial process by its separation form the decision upon sentencing, and is governed by the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). How effective is it in this attempt? Make that judgement obvious from the start. The jury system attempts to balance the rights of the offenders, victims and society because it upholds the Doctrine of Natural Justice by granting the accuses the right to a fair hearing by an impartial judge and jury, juries draw strength and credibility from numbers by majority verdicts and the standard of proof, where someone is bound guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Very long sentence there - Use simple expression! Make concepts easy for your marker to follow! The jury system also attempts to achieve justice by catering for the needs of society by their ability to apply current community values and ethical standards as well as helping to remove bias through the jury deciding upon verdicts as oppose to judge along trials. Good - Again, simpler expression but the concept is solid. Perhaps a media article/quote to support your stance? However, whilst the jury system attempts to achieve justice by balancing the rights of victims, offenders and society, there is also a lack of effectiveness within the jury system. Despite juries attempting to eliminate bias, they may be inclined to be more emotional than judges as well as influenced by the media. Although jurors are instructed to base their verdicts only on evidence they hear in court, in a case where there has been a lot of media coverage, it may be very difficult for jurors to ignore the media and remain impartial. This would be a great place to include a media article, I know there has been a few on this issue! Impartiality is a fundamental right in the court system and its lack of representation in the trial denies the accused their rights and does not uphold the doctrine of natural justice and therefore, jury systems, whilst attempting to balance the rights of offenders, victims and society, do not always achieve justice. Good points raised! Be sure your paragraphs have a proper conclusion with a definitive evaluation to finish.

Defences to criminal charges can be classified as complete or partial and result in no conviction or a lesser conviction. Your marker knows this, you don't need definitions! These defences attempt to achieve justice for victims, offenders and society, however, do not always appropriately balance their needs. The complete defence of self defences requires a defendant to admit to committing the criminal offence, knowing it was wrong, but he/she claims to be acting to defend himself/herself/someone else from the attack. Ditto here, you don't need to define these aspects of your response, get straight into your analysis! Self defence attempts to achieve justice as people should be able to to protect themselves from harm (protection of individual rights) and can only be used if the force is necessary and reasonable, however, this defence cannot always be properly proved, resulting in an inadequate achievement of justice for victims. The R v. Silva case (2015) highlighted that self defence cannot always be accurately proved in the first attempt, who stabbed her boyfriend after abusive threats, violent and ice-addled rage imposed upon her. She was originally convicted of manslaughter however, she appealed the conviction, arguing she was acting in self defence and the NSW Court Of Criminal Appeal questioned her conviction. The initial conviction did not achieve justice of Silva and its lack of justice in the original riling did not balance Silva’s rights, tech criminal court only achieving justice for Silva after an appeal, if Silva did not have adequate access to legal representation in the appeal, she may have not had access to justice. This is an excellent case to use for your argument, but you've taken too long to break it down. It should be one to two sentences, brief case details, then "This case shows __________," to make your judgement straight away. Then immediately jump to your next example! The partial defence of provocation has been exploited in such manners that it no longer achieves justice for victims, offenders and society. Despite its ability to allow women who have suffered years of abuse to reduce their liability if they cause the death of the abuse, this defence has been used to legitimise lethal acts of domestic violence such as R v. Ramage (2004) and R v. Singh (2012), and does not achieve justice for victims. Fantastic! Both wives left their abusive husbands, Ramage and Singh, whom brutally murdered their wives. Singh murdered his wife by cutting her throat with a box cutter 23 times and was sentenced to only 8 years after pleading provocation. This is unnecessary detail, you've already made your argument! The community outrage at the killing being desired as ‘manslaughter’ and not ‘murder’ and the sentences length highlights that the exploitation of this defence does not achieve justice for victims and society, as society continues to question how a man who kills his wife in such circumstances can be entitled to even a partial defence to murder. It actually lead to a review of provocation as a defence, you might wish to mention that! Thus, completely and partial defences, whilst perhaps achieving justice for offenders does limit the justice achieved for society and victims, especially when these defences are brutally exploited. Overall, very solid paragraph - You could just be more succinct and more obvious with your judgements at times!

The adversarial process attempts to achieve justice by upholding the doctrine of natural justice, as it requires the individual right to an impartial jury, judge/magistrate and a right to a fair hearing. The adversarial system is effective for victims and offenders as both parties are heard and given the chance to represent their cases, thus, upholding the doctrine of natural justice. Good. The standards of evidence help remove hearsay and opinion by classifying evidence as admissible or inadmissible, granting the accused a fairer trial and by extent attempts to achieve justice. Try not to say 'attempts,' it makes you seem a little unsure about the argument! It DOES achieve justice! Cross examination in the adversarial system also allows the jury to see and hear both sides of a case, upholding the doctrine of natural justice. However, the adversarial system also is also lacking in effectiveness that inhibits its ability to achieve justice. Slightly awkward in expression here? The delay in cases, as a result of the lack of resource efficiency, inhibits its ability to achieve justice as “justice delayed is justice denied.” Be sure to reference where this quote has come from! Justice is rendered ineffective as equality and access can be absent in a case when one side can afford legal representation and one cannot. Thus, the side with more monetary abilities can afford the best lawyer which may manipulate the jury. Any statistics/media to support this statement? Thus, the lack of equality and access to legal representation inhibits the adversarial system’s ability to achiever justice.

Overall, the criminal trial process attempts to achieve justice by balancing the rights of victims, offenders and society, however the exploitation of certain areas of defences and the adversarial system inhibits its ability to achieve justice. One sentence conclusion isn't a huge deal but something more substantial would definitely be a good thing if you had the time!

This is definitely a strong response to a brutal question Mary!

- I like the way you've structured the response into well defined aspects of the Trial system, very easy to follow. Good work there ;D
- You've made attempts to make regular judgements, which is fantastic - Just be sure these arguments are deliberate and high modality. "DOES achieve justice," "DOESN'T achieve justice," etc etc. This is especially important in the first sentence, the judgement needs to be super clear and focused, even if that is a "halfway" argument.
- More varied evidence would be fantastic: You've got some legislation/cases, would love some media, some stats, some reports! In general you want 3-4 per paragraph at minimum, but this question is super specific so I didn't necessarily expect that here.
- Watch your expression, hard to follow in a few places :)
- You don't need definitions! Your markers are Legal teachers so they know what all the words mean ;D

I hope these comments are helpful for you! :) let me know if I can clarify anything for you!

Mary_a:

--- Quote from: jamonwindeyer on October 02, 2017, 01:24:01 am ---Hey Mary! Essay is attached with feedback in bold ;D


SpoilerEvaluate The Effectiveness of the Criminal Trial Process as a Means of Achieving Justice:

The criminal trial process is an intricate and complex system that incorporates specific areas such as the jury system, complete and partial defences and the adversarial process. These elements attempt to achieve justice by trying to balance the rights of the offenders, victims and society. This introduction is fairly short, you'd prefer to have a smaller body and really setup your essay properly here!

The jury system attempts to achieve justice in the criminal trial process by its separation form the decision upon sentencing, and is governed by the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). How effective is it in this attempt? Make that judgement obvious from the start. The jury system attempts to balance the rights of the offenders, victims and society because it upholds the Doctrine of Natural Justice by granting the accuses the right to a fair hearing by an impartial judge and jury, juries draw strength and credibility from numbers by majority verdicts and the standard of proof, where someone is bound guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Very long sentence there - Use simple expression! Make concepts easy for your marker to follow! The jury system also attempts to achieve justice by catering for the needs of society by their ability to apply current community values and ethical standards as well as helping to remove bias through the jury deciding upon verdicts as oppose to judge along trials. Good - Again, simpler expression but the concept is solid. Perhaps a media article/quote to support your stance? However, whilst the jury system attempts to achieve justice by balancing the rights of victims, offenders and society, there is also a lack of effectiveness within the jury system. Despite juries attempting to eliminate bias, they may be inclined to be more emotional than judges as well as influenced by the media. Although jurors are instructed to base their verdicts only on evidence they hear in court, in a case where there has been a lot of media coverage, it may be very difficult for jurors to ignore the media and remain impartial. This would be a great place to include a media article, I know there has been a few on this issue! Impartiality is a fundamental right in the court system and its lack of representation in the trial denies the accused their rights and does not uphold the doctrine of natural justice and therefore, jury systems, whilst attempting to balance the rights of offenders, victims and society, do not always achieve justice. Good points raised! Be sure your paragraphs have a proper conclusion with a definitive evaluation to finish.

Defences to criminal charges can be classified as complete or partial and result in no conviction or a lesser conviction. Your marker knows this, you don't need definitions! These defences attempt to achieve justice for victims, offenders and society, however, do not always appropriately balance their needs. The complete defence of self defences requires a defendant to admit to committing the criminal offence, knowing it was wrong, but he/she claims to be acting to defend himself/herself/someone else from the attack. Ditto here, you don't need to define these aspects of your response, get straight into your analysis! Self defence attempts to achieve justice as people should be able to to protect themselves from harm (protection of individual rights) and can only be used if the force is necessary and reasonable, however, this defence cannot always be properly proved, resulting in an inadequate achievement of justice for victims. The R v. Silva case (2015) highlighted that self defence cannot always be accurately proved in the first attempt, who stabbed her boyfriend after abusive threats, violent and ice-addled rage imposed upon her. She was originally convicted of manslaughter however, she appealed the conviction, arguing she was acting in self defence and the NSW Court Of Criminal Appeal questioned her conviction. The initial conviction did not achieve justice of Silva and its lack of justice in the original riling did not balance Silva’s rights, tech criminal court only achieving justice for Silva after an appeal, if Silva did not have adequate access to legal representation in the appeal, she may have not had access to justice. This is an excellent case to use for your argument, but you've taken too long to break it down. It should be one to two sentences, brief case details, then "This case shows __________," to make your judgement straight away. Then immediately jump to your next example! The partial defence of provocation has been exploited in such manners that it no longer achieves justice for victims, offenders and society. Despite its ability to allow women who have suffered years of abuse to reduce their liability if they cause the death of the abuse, this defence has been used to legitimise lethal acts of domestic violence such as R v. Ramage (2004) and R v. Singh (2012), and does not achieve justice for victims. Fantastic! Both wives left their abusive husbands, Ramage and Singh, whom brutally murdered their wives. Singh murdered his wife by cutting her throat with a box cutter 23 times and was sentenced to only 8 years after pleading provocation. This is unnecessary detail, you've already made your argument! The community outrage at the killing being desired as ‘manslaughter’ and not ‘murder’ and the sentences length highlights that the exploitation of this defence does not achieve justice for victims and society, as society continues to question how a man who kills his wife in such circumstances can be entitled to even a partial defence to murder. It actually lead to a review of provocation as a defence, you might wish to mention that! Thus, completely and partial defences, whilst perhaps achieving justice for offenders does limit the justice achieved for society and victims, especially when these defences are brutally exploited. Overall, very solid paragraph - You could just be more succinct and more obvious with your judgements at times!

The adversarial process attempts to achieve justice by upholding the doctrine of natural justice, as it requires the individual right to an impartial jury, judge/magistrate and a right to a fair hearing. The adversarial system is effective for victims and offenders as both parties are heard and given the chance to represent their cases, thus, upholding the doctrine of natural justice. Good. The standards of evidence help remove hearsay and opinion by classifying evidence as admissible or inadmissible, granting the accused a fairer trial and by extent attempts to achieve justice. Try not to say 'attempts,' it makes you seem a little unsure about the argument! It DOES achieve justice! Cross examination in the adversarial system also allows the jury to see and hear both sides of a case, upholding the doctrine of natural justice. However, the adversarial system also is also lacking in effectiveness that inhibits its ability to achieve justice. Slightly awkward in expression here? The delay in cases, as a result of the lack of resource efficiency, inhibits its ability to achieve justice as “justice delayed is justice denied.” Be sure to reference where this quote has come from! Justice is rendered ineffective as equality and access can be absent in a case when one side can afford legal representation and one cannot. Thus, the side with more monetary abilities can afford the best lawyer which may manipulate the jury. Any statistics/media to support this statement? Thus, the lack of equality and access to legal representation inhibits the adversarial system’s ability to achiever justice.

Overall, the criminal trial process attempts to achieve justice by balancing the rights of victims, offenders and society, however the exploitation of certain areas of defences and the adversarial system inhibits its ability to achieve justice. One sentence conclusion isn't a huge deal but something more substantial would definitely be a good thing if you had the time!

This is definitely a strong response to a brutal question Mary!

- I like the way you've structured the response into well defined aspects of the Trial system, very easy to follow. Good work there ;D
- You've made attempts to make regular judgements, which is fantastic - Just be sure these arguments are deliberate and high modality. "DOES achieve justice," "DOESN'T achieve justice," etc etc. This is especially important in the first sentence, the judgement needs to be super clear and focused, even if that is a "halfway" argument.
- More varied evidence would be fantastic: You've got some legislation/cases, would love some media, some stats, some reports! In general you want 3-4 per paragraph at minimum, but this question is super specific so I didn't necessarily expect that here.
- Watch your expression, hard to follow in a few places :)
- You don't need definitions! Your markers are Legal teachers so they know what all the words mean ;D

I hope these comments are helpful for you! :) let me know if I can clarify anything for you!

--- End quote ---

Hey Jamon,

Thank you so much!!! I will definitely take notes and learn from your feedback! I just wanted to clarify, that my arguments need to be stronger and more definitive? I feel like that's my problem for all legal essays.

Question, how would you address a law reform question?

Cheers,

Mary

caitlinlddouglas:
Hey would you mind having a look at my essay for crime? i tried to do it under time conditions and i know its not the best, but would you mind outlining how i could cut it down a bit?  Thanks heaps!
'Evaluate the role of law reform in the criminal justice system'
Law reform is imperative to the criminal justice system as it enables the law to continually reflect the changing moral and ethical standards in society, whilst responding to perceived failures of existing law and the rise of new technologies. As such law reform can allow for the greater protection of individual rights and enhance the effectiveness of criminal law. Recent reforms which have resulted from media and public pressure, however, have to a large extent resulted in greater protection for the community at the cost of individual rights. Thus, law reform whilst intrinsically linked to achieving an effective criminal justice system has been only partially effective.
Overtime law reform has played an essential role in the pursuit of equality and gaining a balance between police power and individual rights. This has led to a series of critical changes to the criminal investigation process. Specifically, prior to 2013, the rights of victims were not adequately recognised by the criminal investigation process, when criminal biker gangs would suddenly produce an alibi after the prosecution had spent months preparing for a case. This resulted in a substantial loss of resource with no justice realised for victims. Drafted with through a parliamentary committee and the assistance of police, the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013 (NSW) was seen as an effective response to this perceived failure and allowed for improved resource efficiency and better recognition of the victim and community’s rights. Despite the best intentions of the reform, it was widely criticised with Law Society President Justin Down stating that a lack of community consultation had led to a poor law that failed to protect individual rights and had a negative impact on accused persons with limited knowledge of the criminal investigation process. This conveys that to be effective, law reform must consider all stake holders. Furthermore, it demonstrates the challenges of law reform in addressing the critical tension between protecting society’s rights without on infringing on those of the accused. Despite the inadequacies of this law, law reform means that these can be addressed, so as to provide better outcomes for all of society.
Law reform has also played a key role with regard to bail, in an attempt to improve resource efficiency and better balance the rights of individuals and society. The introduction of the bail Act 2013 (NSW) was considered a necessary change as the previous Bail Act 1978 (NSW) had been amended over eighty times. Such extensive reform had led to extremely complex legislation that failed to provide the efficiency required for the criminal justice system to function effectively. The new Bail Act 2013 (NSW), introduced following a comprehensive report by the NSW Law Reform Commission, attempted to provide greater clarity and more consistent application of the law, whilst addressing the increasing rates of remand across NSW. It replaced the extensive list of presumptions for and against bail with an unacceptable risk test. Initially the reform was effective, leading to a decrease in remand levels, however, the case of Mohamoud Hawi in 2014, who received bail on murder charges and a series of other controversial cases conveys the influence of the media in instigating immediate reform, often with insufficient consultation. Despite Justice Harrison stating with regard to hawi’s case that the risks “had been mitigated by imposing strict conditions”, immense media pressure form radio shock jocks and tabloid newspapers led to the introduction of ‘show cause’ measures for serious criminal charges. Despite the changes providing greater protection for society, thy limited the judge’s discretion as well as significantly implicating the ‘presumption of innocence’, a fundamental legal right. The subsequent increase in remand levels conveys that the reform has not been effective in addressing key issues. These amendments indicate the success of law reform within the criminal justice system is dependent on measured considered research and recommendations form relevant legal bodies rather than calls for reform by the media.
Law reform has also been pivotal within the sentencing process of the criminal justice system. Reforms to this area, as governed by the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedures) Act 1999 (NSW) are highly important as they largely determine how offenders will be treated and reintegrated into society. Principally, for sentences to be just for the victim, offender and society, they must enable judicial discretion to be exercised. The case of R v Loveridge (2013) where Loveridge was imprisoned and charged with manslaughter led to major reform to sentencing. This was driven by media outrage at his original sentence of five years and 2 months. Minimum mandatory sentences for causing death with a single strike were introduced less than 3 months later, also making it mandatory for intoxication to be an aggravating factor. The reform was considered effective as it improves justice for the victim and acts as a general deterrent. Despite this, the Law Council was critical of the amendment, stating that mandatory imprisonment will lead to “the individual engaging in more serious criminal acts down the track.” Furthermore, the reforms remove judicial discretion and further impact the rights of the offender, which could result in less responsive and suitable sentencing and punishment from being achieved. Consequently law reform has to an extent been effective within this area of the criminal justice system.
An evaluation of the impact of law reform into the above areas of the criminal justice system conveys that reform is the most effective mechanism in addressing key issues that arise from criminal law. These reforms, whilst failing to provide greater protections for offenders and the accused have responded to society’s calls for harsher legislation, so as to recognise the rights of the victim and the community. In this respect, law reform has successfully reflected society’s changing ethical and moral standards. It must be noted, however, that Law reform is fundamental to the criminal justice system, so that more effective, just outcomes for the victim, offender and society may eventually be realised.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page