Evaluate whether legal and nonlegal responses have achieved just outcomes for family members and society in regards to domestic violence?
Domestic violence (DV) is defined as any act, whether verbal or physical, of a violent or abusive nature that takes place within a domestic relationship (Cambridge, 2006).
I know there is a big thing about defining terms, but you definitely shouldn't be defining domestic violence. Your marker knows what it is already! DV as a rising issue among society caused by the changing values of communities, into the unacceptable nature of harm within relationships.
A little unclear what you are saying there. With the issue coming to light it places legal and non legal responses in a better position to be able to “catch up” in the achievement of just outcomes for families and societies.
Good, I like that perspective! Legal responses are proven to be adequate on paper but lacking in the practicality in the enforcement in the achievement of just outcomes.
Little expression issue there - To many "in the"s! Similarly non legal responses prove effective in the promotion and raising awareness of the issue, though, being restrained within the limitations of holding no legal enforceability. With 1 in 3 women experiencing physical violence since the age of 15 (AIC, 2015), highlights the need for further achievement of just outcomes for family members and society in DV.
Overall, I like this introduction! Makes your argument clear and runs through your key points. Watch for expression and make sure you use the space efficiently.
One legal response designed to protect the applicant from violence and other forms of intimidation or abuse by the offender are, ADVOs (Legal Aid NSW, nd).
Try to make the judgement in the first sentence - Make it obvious straight away! The introduction of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment Bill 2013 (NSW) reinforced previous legislation by refining the guidelines.
How? A tad more specific here. Now enabling police to issue provisional ADVO’s and holding the power to detain someone until the offender has received an ADVO (NSW Police, 2013).
Good. Therefore providing just outcomes in the protection of families and general society, as having been regarded as the “single most practical meaningful reform in combating domestic violence” (On the Spot ADVO’s to protect women, The Aus 2013).
Careful, you are flowing your ideas through multiple sentences but not really joining them properly, just a little off on the expression. Good use of media though. Though alternatively the ineffectiveness of enforcement, in the Daily Telegraphs article “Slap on the wrist for AVOs”, Alicia reports that “only 12.4% of apprehended ADVO breaches are punished by jail time with the average sentence being only 4 months” (Daily Telegraph 2015).
Nice statistic - Again though, watch expression. Proving the achievement of little justice for family members as their is none to little enforcement of ADVO breaches, dangerously causing the offenders to believe that an ADVO is “just a piece of paper” to which compliance is optional.
Nice argument. Limited supervision and enforcement of offenders, give them opportunities to breach their restrictions, putting the victim at risk as seen by the Jean Majdalawi (1996) case.
Try and use the proper referencing format, if you can. This case proves the ineffectiveness of legal responses in achieving justice for the victims and society, as Jean was brutally murdered whilst on an ADVO, due to the offenders resentfulness and desire for revenge. Naomi Toy states in “2007 23,176 ADVOs were issued in NSW and in the same year there were more than 10,000 recorded breaches” (Daily Telegraph, 2008), highlighting the ineffectiveness in justice for victim and society, in the outrages reoffending numbers. Therefore proving that ADVOs as a legal response can provide a temporary and efficient protection for the victim, though the unsupervised nature and lack of practical enforcement, places the victim at high potential risk.
Nice judgements made and good pieces of evidence. I think your expression is the thing that is holding you back - It could be more succinct and more direct, some places the reader (marker) is doing a bit more work than they should be to follow what you are saying! Further ineffectiveness in achieving justice is shown through the enforcement of DV offenders seeking bail.
What do you mean by enforcement of DV offenders seeking bail? Slightly unclear. Under section 9A of the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) it explicitly stated that bail would be declined to a DV offender or an individual who breached their ADVO, though this act was amended in 2013. In the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) under section 19, it states that an individual will be refused bail if they are deemed an “unacceptable risk” in the “endangerment of safety of victims, individuals or the community” (Austlii, 2013).
Don't quote Austlii here, that's just the law itself. No citation needed. Thus proving the reform ineffective as it is the judge's discretion to which individuals they deem as an “endangerment”, as opposed to the 1978 in which it was explicitly outlined that their bail shall be refused.
I like how you've picked the law apart - Good work. The further review of the bail system for DV offenders, had a massive push for reform in February 2017 after the media outburst following Teresa Bradford death.
Expression. David Bradford had been jailed on serious DV charges and then got granted bail, who following this broke into his wife’s home and brutally stabbed her in front of their four children, before killing himself. Thus proving the ineffectiveness of legal responses in achieving just outcomes for individuals and society, in the now ease in which DV offenders are being released on bail.
Expression - You can't start a sentence with "Thus" the way you are doing in this paragraph, it should be "Thus, this proves the ineffectiveness...".
Another legal measure that aims at tackling DV is the Family Court of Australia (FCA), under the provision of the Family Law Act 1995 (Cth).
Effectiveness?
Make judgement immediately. With the aim of intervention and protection of children in DV relationships, it is moderately effective in its protection of children under the The Convention on the Rights Of the Child 1989 (CROC). Though the FCA proves effective when making judgements and imposing penalties as it takes into account previous DV/violent history, achieving justice for victims in putting their safety first (Family Court of Australia, 2016). Theoretically on paper this would be highly effective, though in practice it’s highly ineffective, proved in the Rosie Batty DV case in 2014.
Nice use of evidence in this paragraph - Varied and judgements are obvious. Good work. Where the rights over the parents were placed above the rights of the son Luke, in allowing the father to be involved in his life.
Expression - You've started this sentence in mid thought - What does "where" refer to? I know it is the case, but that was in the previous sentence. The expression can really hamper the sophistication of what you are writing. The Victorian Coroner Ian Gray said to ABC News in 2015, that his investigation identified "a number of gaps or flaws" in the family violence system. This case demonstrates the ineffectiveness of legal responses such as the FCA to take into consideration the ability for a DV offender to reoffend and cause sufficient harm to their family and society. (ABC,2015) Also showing how/why the FCA is only moderately effective in upholding CROC because in this case the “best interest” of the child was put secondary to the right of the parent. Proving that it is only moderately effective in the achievement of just outcomes for family and society due to the gaps in the legal systems enforcement that need to be addressed.
Fantastic use of evidence and arguments in this paragraph, good work.
In addition, government responses, have taken steps towards the reduction of DV rates, in the Turnbull government attempting to change the national culture to make disrespecting women and children unacceptable(ABC,2015) . This push for change follows the 63 deaths in 2015 as a result of DV(ABC,2015) .Following their aim to make it a “national objective to ensure Australia is more respecting of women” as it has been “ignored for far too long and we must have a zero tolerance for it” (PM Malcolm Turnbull unveils $100 million package to fight domestic violence, ABC, 25 September 2015). In doing so the government has increased resources such as GPS panic buttons for victims and educational resources to changes attitudes of DV by elevating the issue to a national knowledge in its unacceptability. Though this is all being implemented it has yet to prove effective in means of reducing DV and further enforcement is needed to protect victims and achieve justice for families.
Good paragraph, good arguments, but I feel this feels a little out of place as a paragraph. Perhaps you could expand it to include other initiatives/strategies, or expand on these ones more? Just feels short.
Moreover, the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) was amended in 1995 to remove the requirement that previously needed a person to “reasonably” fear for their safety, and to include controlling behaviour. However with cases such as R v Gittany [2013] NSWSC 1503 and R v Mulvihill [2014] NSWSC 443, both involving the murder through the cause of domestic violence. Proven that these measure have been largely ineffective in the protection and achievement of just outcomes for the victims and general society.
Ditto with this paragraph - Too short. Feels very out of place, there isn't a fully formed argument. I'd merge this somewhere else.
In contrast, the non legal mechanism, Rosie Batty’s iMatter App was developed to help young women recognise the abusive and controlling warning signs of a potential DV relationship. (Doncare, 2017)
Judgement? Created by Rosie Batty in the wake of the murder of her son, at the hands of her husband. It aims to promote positive self esteem for women, as well as to educate about disrespect and intimate partner violence. (Doncare, 2017)
Don't tell me what the measure does, that isn't super important - Get to your judgements immediately. With the aim of promoting conversations about healthy relationship behaviour, raising awareness about DV. (Doncare, 2017) Though this non legal mechanism is only mildly effective, as it can help individuals realise the signs of a DV relationship, it can’t physically give them any protection or hold any legal power to interfere.
You've made a judgement at the end here, but you've not delved into it or expanded on it in any way. Definitely not as strong as prior paragraphs.
Further, NGO’s are another mechanism of non-legal responses in achieving justice for DV, which are non government groups.
Judgement? NGOs are groups who lobby for change, attempt to promote issues of DV and compile reports.
Don't need to explain what NGO's are. They concern themselves with the spreading of awareness and pressure on the government. One example of a NGO is the White Ribbon campaign, which through primary prevention initiatives involving awareness raising and educational programs with youth, schools and workplaces attempts to aid in the reducement of DV. (White Ribbon Australia, 2017) Through promotional material White Ribbon constantly reminds society about the prevalence of DV and encourages people to band together in pushing for change. Though it is effective in promotion, though with a lack of support and ability to have any say in the changing of laws, the NGO proves ineffective in achieving just outcomes for families and society.
Again, the judgement is a bit of an afterthought in this paragraph. You could perhaps link this paragraph and the last to make it stronger.
Another non legal measure is the media, and it is known to have immense impacts on the opinions, values and views of the society.
Immensely good or bad?
Make your judgements clear and explicit! This allows the media to raise public awareness of DV and of any concerns arising around the issue. The media can also desensitise the issue of DV and have an adverse effect if too much coverage of this issue is presented before the community. Thus effecting law reform which only comes about if it is seen as an important issue in the eyes of the community. The media is a moderately effective non legal tool as it can raise awareness but holds the ability to halt or limit the ability for reform on the issue.
Therefore, legal and nonlegal measure in response to dealing with DV, are proved moderately effective. With each measure respectively, having its benefits but also its limits in producing just outcomes for families and the wider community. Though the issue of DV has a wide range of mechanisms that aid in its elimination most of these responses still prove only to a limited extent effective, in achieving justice for all.
I think this conclusion does the job! Restates your argument succinctly and links back to the question 
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Free Legal Essay Marking! (Read 185192 times)