-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
General Thoughts: Legal Studies (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rafy
- Start date
The test wasn't hard per se, it just wanted answers from areas people would not have wanted.
For Contemporary issue (Human Trafficking) i didn't have that much media, charter of rights was annoying but do-able
Crime took a while to understand (Then realised almost everything takes place in court so to a large extent the only means of achieving justice within the criminal justice system)
Family (B) was like wtf so some how had to relate court to legislation and what not
World order was easy
A couple MC got me but the rest were easy
A lot of the Q's should get scaled in my opinion..
For Contemporary issue (Human Trafficking) i didn't have that much media, charter of rights was annoying but do-able
Crime took a while to understand (Then realised almost everything takes place in court so to a large extent the only means of achieving justice within the criminal justice system)
Family (B) was like wtf so some how had to relate court to legislation and what not
World order was easy
A couple MC got me but the rest were easy
A lot of the Q's should get scaled in my opinion..
Against means cons.
The Charter of Rights question wouldn't be that hard.
Example: A Charter of Rights, a document outlining and enshrining the basic rights and freedoms to which Australians are entitled, would be beneficial as it would improve Australia's social standing and bring it in line with other democratic nation states (as Australia is currently the only Western nation to not have a Bill/Charter of rights). Furthermore, a Charter of Rights, would alleviate the heavy reliance Australia has on common and statute law in interpreting and protecting human rights, and would enshrine these under a single document that would be both utilitarian and not retrospective. These in turn, may be also improve socio-political relations and cut the economic costs of court cases due to easier interpretations of human rights. Conversely, a Charter of Human rights may also incur economic costs as well as the unnecessary enshrinement of human rights that do not need legalisation. Many also argue the basic principle that we do not need a 'Charter of Rights' as human rights in Australia under common and statute law are sufficiently protected and already. A Charter of Rights in Australia finally may lead to however an abuse of power with the judicature undermining parliamentary sovereignty, consequently leaving almost no need for Australian Parliament at all.
With regards to the 5 marker, eg. child soldiers. The media promotion of child soldiers through such movies as Blood Diamond, in effect promotes and globalises the issues of child soldiers in areas of Uganda where kidnapping is frequent and Sierra Leone where these children involved in military conflict, both directly and indirectly are drugged. The promotion of the media in this sense, hence also leads to a more universal front to punish these offenders, as in the case of Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga (2008) in the International Criminal Court. The media's efforts as a non-legal mechanism, also gives credibility to such NGO's as Amnesty International and the rehabilitating programs of Human Watch allowing the reintegration of these children back into society, as in the Hassan Case (2010). It is the media which not only pressures for legislative change, evident by CROC (1989), but also collaborative preventative action, as in the Paris Peace Principles (2007) who through contemporary media, attempt to stop the growth of child soldiers.
3 marker is basically a shortened version of last year's longest human rights question - state sovereignty, whilst protecting groups such as asylum seekers, significantly lessens the effectivity of the protection of human rights in that a state can make laws for its citizens without external interference, hence another state has no say or influence on another country's laws. Furthermore, states cannot make other states become signatories to such hard laws (ICESCR and ICCPR) and soft laws (UDHR), which also lead to difficulties in the prosecution of human rights offenders, evident by difficulties of prosecution in the ICC because of state sovereignty, as evident by some states like Burma having reservations and the Nuclear Case of 1974 where Australia and NZ took France to court over its use of nuclear weapons in the Pacific waters, but France simply did not show.
Looked at the paper. Multiple Choice -easy. HR - easy. 15 marker, funny, but manageable. Consumers -easy. Family - bit tricky.
Example: A Charter of Rights, a document outlining and enshrining the basic rights and freedoms to which Australians are entitled, would be beneficial as it would improve Australia's social standing and bring it in line with other democratic nation states (as Australia is currently the only Western nation to not have a Bill/Charter of rights). Furthermore, a Charter of Rights, would alleviate the heavy reliance Australia has on common and statute law in interpreting and protecting human rights, and would enshrine these under a single document that would be both utilitarian and not retrospective. These in turn, may be also improve socio-political relations and cut the economic costs of court cases due to easier interpretations of human rights. Conversely, a Charter of Human rights may also incur economic costs as well as the unnecessary enshrinement of human rights that do not need legalisation. Many also argue the basic principle that we do not need a 'Charter of Rights' as human rights in Australia under common and statute law are sufficiently protected and already. A Charter of Rights in Australia finally may lead to however an abuse of power with the judicature undermining parliamentary sovereignty, consequently leaving almost no need for Australian Parliament at all.
With regards to the 5 marker, eg. child soldiers. The media promotion of child soldiers through such movies as Blood Diamond, in effect promotes and globalises the issues of child soldiers in areas of Uganda where kidnapping is frequent and Sierra Leone where these children involved in military conflict, both directly and indirectly are drugged. The promotion of the media in this sense, hence also leads to a more universal front to punish these offenders, as in the case of Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga (2008) in the International Criminal Court. The media's efforts as a non-legal mechanism, also gives credibility to such NGO's as Amnesty International and the rehabilitating programs of Human Watch allowing the reintegration of these children back into society, as in the Hassan Case (2010). It is the media which not only pressures for legislative change, evident by CROC (1989), but also collaborative preventative action, as in the Paris Peace Principles (2007) who through contemporary media, attempt to stop the growth of child soldiers.
3 marker is basically a shortened version of last year's longest human rights question - state sovereignty, whilst protecting groups such as asylum seekers, significantly lessens the effectivity of the protection of human rights in that a state can make laws for its citizens without external interference, hence another state has no say or influence on another country's laws. Furthermore, states cannot make other states become signatories to such hard laws (ICESCR and ICCPR) and soft laws (UDHR), which also lead to difficulties in the prosecution of human rights offenders, evident by difficulties of prosecution in the ICC because of state sovereignty, as evident by some states like Burma having reservations and the Nuclear Case of 1974 where Australia and NZ took France to court over its use of nuclear weapons in the Pacific waters, but France simply did not show.
Looked at the paper. Multiple Choice -easy. HR - easy. 15 marker, funny, but manageable. Consumers -easy. Family - bit tricky.
Discuss means give both sides. It requires higher order thinking, like Assess or Evaluate-type questions.
thanks mate for clearing it up
Yeah if it's a discuss you definitely have to give both sides. I gave three reasons for, three against and I was pretty careful not to include a judgement because you're not really supposed to in discuss questions. The 7 marks confused me, because if it was six I would say three for, three against... not sure where the 7th will come from. Maybe from actually discussing the IMPACT rather than just saying good and bad things.
Yeah in my opinion it should have been 4 for the Sovereignty Question and 6 for the Charter question.
Did anyone else start out crime by saying "To no extent does this statement reflect the criminal justice system..." and go on to talk about how the Courts in exclusion could never achieve justice, and while they are a substantial part of it, its cooperation between the different aspects that is ultimately pivotal.
Your stance on the questions seems to holistically disprove the statement altogether. That's quite a bold move, because your scope can only focus on negatives. Whilst there are negatives, I think everyone has at least a few things exemplifying the court processes (at least its operations which can act as a catalyst in your essay - eg. legal aid, plea bargaining and the adversary system while with their negatives (eg. unequal distribution of resources, knowledge and skills) do attempt to remove institutionalised inequality and increase the efficiency of the court process/judicial system in general). Your approach and use of superlatives 'never', 'to no extent', shut out all ideas altogether - some court punishments are also effective, but at the same time, yes, you are right in saying that at times, they do not achieve justice.
Note
Post-sentencing considerations - continued and preventative detention
Lack of use of the 'welfare model' on young offenders, and the need for rehabilitation
The tensions between the victim, offender and community as a result of court processes/punishments - (media)
Diversionary program efficacy - restorative justice and circle sentencing.
Not criticising, just my opinion to succinctly hone in on what was on face value, quite an open question.