Free Legal Essay Marking!

[Tuong-Anh]

Would you be able to critique my legal essay? Any feedback is welcome as I am aiming to improve my writing skills.
Thank you
 

[jamonwindeyer]

Would you be able to critique my legal essay? Any feedback is welcome as I am aiming to improve my writing skills.
Thank you
 

Hi Tuong-Anh, welcome to the forums!!

Thanks for posting your essay. Unfortunately, we have a rule that you need to make 15 posts on ATAR Notes for every essay you'd like marked. This just ensures the marking threads don't get too over-filled, and makes sure our markers can keep up and give great feedback to the people contributing most to the community (the full essay marking rules are here)

So, feel free to hang around the site a bit! Ask some questions, answer some, just have a chat, all that good stuff! Once you hit 15 posts come back and let us know, and we'll definitely get you some great feedback!

[Neilab]

Hey!! I attended a few lectures with ATARnotes this past week and only just found out about these forums! in particular, elyse showed me this thread and I'm very interested in using it more often

I was set a homework task to write an essay on "Assess the extent to which the categories of crime reflect moral and ethical standards". Our teacher gave us all the relevant information needed for a few of the paragraphs... but we were required to write the intro, 1st body paragraph and conclusion from scratch.

Was just wondering if you could read through to see if it made sense and if I was answering the question effectively?

HERE it is:


Introduction

The categories of crime are largely effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of the community but somewhat lack effectiveness in representing these standards for certain drug offences. Moral and ethical standards are demonstrated in the categories of crime through the formation and enforcement of the Crimes Act 1900 legislation, comprising of the categories of crime to protect the community. However, there has been great debate and rhetoric in the effectiveness of convicting drug offences to protect the greater society at large as the laws fundamental aim. The debate addresses whether drug offences are merely a self-imposed act to only harm the individual and not the greater community at large. In this way, the categories of crime mostly reflect moral and ethical standards but may lack the accurate representation of these standards on the category of drug offences.

Paragraph on offences against the person

Offences against the person involve some form of harm inflicted on an individual, consequently making it a significant offence under the categories of crime to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society. This is demonstrated through inclusion of such offences in the Crimes Act (1900) ,which comprises of the categories of crime to protect individuals and the greater community.  Society’s unacceptance of the unlawful killing of a person sees murder as the most serious offence, often resulting in convicted offenders receiving heavy punishments and substantial jail-time. This is evident in the case of R v Milat (1996) where the accused was sentenced to penal servitude for life. Additionally, Homicide is categorised under 5 offences that are all recognised in the Crimes Act 1900 to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as it protects the community at large. This highlights the categories of crime as a pure reflection of moral and ethical standards. Additionally assault and sex offences, such as sexual assault, are regarded by society as crimes that can inflict physical and psychological harm to a person in an unlawful way. This is demonstrated in the case of R v Scaf (2002), where one of the accused, Bilal Scaf, was sentenced to 31 years imprisonment. Scaf was moved to maximum security in Goulburn Goal after prison officers uncovered plans by his fellow inmates, at the Long Bay Correction Centre, to inject him with HIV-infected blood. As a result, the inclusion of sexual assault and its various relevant categories, exemplify the categories of crime as a reflection of moral and ethical standards, even amongst inmates. In this way, the categories of crime evidently reflect moral and ethical standards to protect both the individual and the community.

Paragraph on drug offences - alcohol

While many of the offences against the person reflect contemporary moral and ethical standards, it could be argued that the same is not true for certain drug offences. Currently, some drugs that cause harm are illegal, such as heroin and cannabis, while others, such as alcohol and tobacco, are not illegal. The National Drug Strategy Household Survey (2013) (NDSHS) found that 40% of Australians consider the excessive use of alcohol to be the “drug issue that people feel is of the most concern to the general community”. In addition, 26% of Australians over the age of 14 had been a victim of an alcohol-related incident and around 8% had experienced physical abuse from an alcohol-affected person. However, the same survey found that “the most supported policy to reduce alcohol harm was to establish more severe penalties for drink driving (85%) followed by stricter enforcement of the law against supplying to minors (84%)”. This would suggest that although alcohol is perceived to be of the most concern, society’s values and ethics accept alcohol as a legitimate drug that requires regulation, rather than criminalisation.

Paragraph on drug offences - tobacco

The NDSHS also noted that tobacco is the major cause of cancer in Australia, accounting for about 20-30% of cancer cases. However, as tobacco usage has declined significantly between 2010 and 2013 (from 15% to 12% of people aged 14 and older), people are less inclined to perceive it as a drug of most concern to the general community. The survey also found that society supports policies aimed at reducing harm and preventing supply to minors, with around 90% of people supporting such causes. Additionally, while the harm caused by tobacco is great, there is no evidence to suggest the public would support tobacco’s criminalisation. This would suggest that society’s values and ethics are represented in current drug offences, to the extent they do not criminalise alcohol and tobacco

Paragraph on drug offences – cannabis etc

Additionally, the criminalisation of drugs such as cannabis fail to deter individuals due to the ambiguity of the law and its disregard by society. In 2013, a study by the NDSHS found that around 42% of people in Australia aged 14 years or older had illicitly used drugs with almost 3 million of these people using these drugs in the last 12 months. These statistics suggest that the uses of illicit drugs are mostly common within the broader society.  Another finding was the statistics in regards to victims involved in drug-related incidents. A huge 8.3% of the population had been in a drug-related incident, with verbal abuse being the most frequently reported incident reported overall. Within this number 3.1% had experienced some form of physical abuse under the influence of illicit drugs. These proportions are significantly less than the equivalent for alcohol. In addition, a 2012 article from ‘The Conversation’ by Alison Ritter, Professor & Specialist in Drug Policy at UNSW Australia, highlighted the public’s opinion on the support of the decriminalising of cannabis. The recent national survey found that 80% of Australians support the decriminalisation of cannabis. The enormous figure demonstrates the notion that, despite the harm caused by drugs; it is not a factor that causes harm as great as tobacco and alcohol. The report also suggested that a large proportion of the population has consumed such substances and an overwhelming number support the criminalisation of some illicit drugs. In this way, it can be argued that the category of drug offences, primarily in relation to cannabis, is not a reflection of a number of Australians morals and ethics.

Conclusion

The categories of crime are mostly a reflection of the Australian society’s morals and ethical values but arguably lack the appropriate representation of a large number of Australians views towards drug offences primarily involving cannabis. Offences against the person is a category of crime that reflects the moral and ethical standards of society at large demonstrated through inclusion of such offences in the Crimes Act 1900 legislation. However with certain drug offences it is certain that this is not the case. Society’s values and ethics are represented in current drug offences; to the extent they do not criminalise alcohol and tobacco. This extends to the notion that whilst alcohol is perceived to be of the most concern, society’s values and ethics accept alcohol and tobacco as drugs that require regulation rather than criminalisation. However, the criminalisation of drugs such as cannabis fail to deter individuals due to the ambiguity of the law and its disregard by society. The recent national survey found that 80% of Australians support the decriminalisation of cannabis creating the argument that certain categories of drug offences, primarily in relation to cannabis, fail to reflect a number of Australians values and ethics. In this way, the categories of crime mostly accomplish an accurate representation of the moral and ethical standards of society but lack this accuracy in relation to drug offences. This issue requires rectification through law reform to reflect the current societies moral and ethical standards in order to balance the rights of the individual and the needs of the state.

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey Neila! Sorry for the delay - The lectures and the subsequent exhaustion had us stop marking for a weekend back on it now! Expect feedback really soon!

[Neilab]

Hey Neila! Sorry for the delay - The lectures and the subsequent exhaustion had us stop marking for a weekend back on it now! Expect feedback really soon!

thankyou!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey!! I attended a few lectures with ATARnotes this past week and only just found out about these forums! in particular, elyse showed me this thread and I'm very interested in using it more often

I was set a homework task to write an essay on "Assess the extent to which the categories of crime reflect moral and ethical standards". Our teacher gave us all the relevant information needed for a few of the paragraphs... but we were required to write the intro, 1st body paragraph and conclusion from scratch.

Was just wondering if you could read through to see if it made sense and if I was answering the question effectively?

Hey! Sorry once again for the delay in getting you some feedback; so glad you enjoyed the lectures and hope these forums come to be really useful throughout the year!

Your feedback is attached below in the spoiler - My comments are in bold

Spoiler

Assess the extent to which the categories of crime reflect moral and ethical standards

The categories of crime are largely effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of the community but somewhat lack effectiveness in representing these standards for certain drug offences. This is an awesome sentence - But it feels a little sporadic. It's not been 'set up' properly. I'd like to see you start with something like "The categories of crime are essential in _______." Give a bit of context! Moral and ethical standards are demonstrated in the categories of crime through the formation and enforcement of the Crimes Act 1900 legislation, comprising of the categories of crime to protect the community. Good. However, there has been great debate and rhetoric in the effectiveness of convicting drug offences to protect the greater society at large as the laws fundamental aim. A little unclear in that sentence, I think expression could be improved. The debate addresses whether drug offences are merely a self-imposed act to only harm the individual and not the greater community at large. In this way, the categories of crime mostly reflect moral and ethical standards but may lack the accurate representation of these standards on the category of drug offences. Good introduction! Sets up the argument and lays out your plan of attack - Nice! Work on clarifying expression and adding a bit of context to the start.

Offences against the person involve some form of harm inflicted on an individual, consequently making it a significant offence under the categories of crime to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society. Normally I would say to steer clear of facts - We know what an offence against the person is and so normally it would be unnecessary to mention. However, this is a weird question and I think it works well here. This is demonstrated through inclusion of such offences in the Crimes Act (1900) ,which comprises of the categories of crime to protect individuals and the greater community. You stated this in the intro - Feels a little bit throwaway here. Society’s unacceptance of the unlawful killing of a person sees murder as the most serious offence, often resulting in convicted offenders receiving heavy punishments and substantial jail-time. 'Unacceptance' isn't a word - Maybe 'condemnation', perhaps? This is evident in the case of R v Milat (1996) where the accused was sentenced to penal servitude for life. A more recent case study could be beneficial; even as an addition not a replacement! Additionally, Homicide is categorised under 5 offences that are all recognised in the Crimes Act 1900 to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as it protects the community at large. How do the differing categories assist with this though? How is it more effective than a simpler, broader punishment. This highlights the categories of crime as a pure reflection of moral and ethical standards. Additionally assault and sex offences, such as sexual assault, are regarded by society as crimes that can inflict physical and psychological harm to a person in an unlawful way. This is demonstrated in the case of R v Scaf (2002), where one of the accused, Bilal Scaf, was sentenced to 31 years imprisonment. Scaf was moved to maximum security in Goulburn Goal after prison officers uncovered plans by his fellow inmates, at the Long Bay Correction Centre, to inject him with HIV-infected blood. How is this additional information relevant to your argument? Whenever you give an example, you MUST link it to the argument you are making. As a result, the inclusion of sexual assault and its various relevant categories, exemplify the categories of crime as a reflection of moral and ethical standards, even amongst inmates. In this way, the categories of crime evidently reflect moral and ethical standards to protect both the individual and the community. Solid paragraph - Ensure that all your examples are relevant and that you are really exploring your argument thoroughly.

While many of the offences against the person reflect contemporary moral and ethical standards, it could be argued that the same is not true for certain drug offences. Fabulous opener. Currently, some drugs that cause harm are illegal, such as heroin and cannabis, while others, such as alcohol and tobacco, are not illegal. The National Drug Strategy Household Survey (2013) (NDSHS) found that 40% of Australians consider the excessive use of alcohol to be the “drug issue that people feel is of the most concern to the general community”. In addition, 26% of Australians over the age of 14 had been a victim of an alcohol-related incident and around 8% had experienced physical abuse from an alcohol-affected person. Nice inclusion of statistics - How does this relate to your argument though? However, the same survey found that “the most supported policy to reduce alcohol harm was to establish more severe penalties for drink driving (85%) followed by stricter enforcement of the law against supplying to minors (84%)”. This would suggest that although alcohol is perceived to be of the most concern, society’s values and ethics accept alcohol as a legitimate drug that requires regulation, rather than criminalisation. This seemed a bit more like a regurgitation of statistics than an actual argument, if that makes sense? So you've given some great data, but not really done a lot to link that to the idea of moral/ethical standards (it disappears after the first sentence).

The NDSHS also noted that tobacco is the major cause of cancer in Australia, accounting for about 20-30% of cancer cases. However, as tobacco usage has declined significantly between 2010 and 2013 (from 15% to 12% of people aged 14 and older), people are less inclined to perceive it as a drug of most concern to the general community. The survey also found that society supports policies aimed at reducing harm and preventing supply to minors, with around 90% of people supporting such causes. Additionally, while the harm caused by tobacco is great, there is no evidence to suggest the public would support tobacco’s criminalisation. This would suggest that society’s values and ethics are represented in current drug offences, to the extent they do not criminalise alcohol and tobacco. So I love the point you are making here - That the non-criminalisation of these drugs reflects the current sociopolitical standards. Fabulous! But it feels again like this is more statistics than argument - I reckon you could blend this with the previous paragraph.

Additionally, the criminalisation of drugs such as cannabis fail to deter individuals due to the ambiguity of the law and its disregard by society. The idea of moral/ethical standards should appear in your first sentence - This shows your argument continues to be at the front of your mind!  In 2013, a study by the NDSHS found that around 42% of people in Australia aged 14 years or older had illicitly used drugs with almost 3 million of these people using these drugs in the last 12 months. These statistics suggest that the uses of illicit drugs are mostly common within the broader society. Link to your argument. Another finding was the statistics in regards to victims involved in drug-related incidents. A huge 8.3% of the population had been in a drug-related incident, with verbal abuse being the most frequently reported incident reported overall. Within this number 3.1% had experienced some form of physical abuse under the influence of illicit drugs. These proportions are significantly less than the equivalent for alcohol. In addition, a 2012 article from ‘The Conversation’ by Alison Ritter, Professor & Specialist in Drug Policy at UNSW Australia, highlighted the public’s opinion on the support of the decriminalising of cannabis. Nice inclusion of media - I love it! But again, link to argument. The recent national survey found that 80% of Australians support the decriminalisation of cannabis. The enormous figure demonstrates the notion that, despite the harm caused by drugs; it is not a factor that causes harm as great as tobacco and alcohol. The report also suggested that a large proportion of the population has consumed such substances and an overwhelming number support the criminalisation of some illicit drugs. In this way, it can be argued that the category of drug offences, primarily in relation to cannabis, is not a reflection of a number of Australians morals and ethics. Once again, some great information and ideas coming through here but it's not quite being linked to the greater Thesis effectively. It is hinted, and if I do some thinking I can make the connections. But I shouldn't have to do that work; it should be clear as day!

The categories of crime are mostly a reflection of the Australian society’s morals and ethical values but arguably lack the appropriate representation of a large number of Australians views towards drug offences primarily involving cannabis. Excellent start to your conclusion. Offences against the person is a category of crime that reflects the moral and ethical standards of society at large demonstrated through inclusion of such offences in the Crimes Act 1900 legislation. However with certain drug offences it is certain that this is not the case. Great - You are making a very obvious and clear judgement here. Society’s values and ethics are represented in current drug offences; to the extent they do not criminalise alcohol and tobacco. This extends to the notion that whilst alcohol is perceived to be of the most concern, society’s values and ethics accept alcohol and tobacco as drugs that require regulation rather than criminalisation. A little too much restatement here - Your conclusion should VERY briefly summarise your arguments. Right now its a tad long. However, the criminalisation of drugs such as cannabis fail to deter individuals due to the ambiguity of the law and its disregard by society. The recent national survey found that 80% of Australians support the decriminalisation of cannabis creating the argument that certain categories of drug offences, primarily in relation to cannabis, fail to reflect a number of Australians values and ethics. Never introduce any new/old statistics in your conclusion. All your ideas/evidence should be done by now - A conclusion is just summation!  In this way, the categories of crime mostly accomplish an accurate representation of the moral and ethical standards of society but lack this accuracy in relation to drug offences. This issue requires rectification through law reform to reflect the current societies moral and ethical standards in order to balance the rights of the individual and the needs of the state. Great finish, nicely done.

Right, so let me prelude by saying: This question suuuucks. It is not nice. Definitely not an essay-worthy question - You can't analyse the categories of crime. That isn't a thing, at least in my opinion. So, take this feedback with that in mind, because I think you are tackling a very difficult question that isn't very easy to access.

One thing you are doing well; fantastic evidence. Cases, stats, laws, media - Some excellent inclusions. You could include more laws and more cases, of course, but this is a great foundation and it shows a commitment to proving your point. That is fabulous! What I want you to do is keep the argument at the front of your mind - How does this piece of evidence make your argument more convincing? How does it relate? Many times you introduced a statistic or a media article but didn't link it to your argument. You must always do this!

Really, this is the main bit of feedback I'd have at this point, in addition to the comments throughout. Getting your argument more obvious and more cohesive. I know what it is, but it could be expressed more clearly and more succinctly. Start every paragraph with a sentence linking to your argument - 'Moral/ethical standards' should always appear in that first sentence. It should appear frequently throughout the paragraph as well. You could also benefit from a more clear definition of your argument in the introduction - Primarily, a clear definition of moral/ethical standards and WHY the categories of crime should reflect them.

My feedback for this essay isn't great, I admit, because its such a weird question! But I hope this helps in a small way and that you'll be back for more feedback in the future! Let me know if you needed anything clarified

[parthie]

Hey I have this essay I have to to do on this question due monday:

Assess the extent to which factors affecting sentencing decisions balance the rights of the victims, offenders, and society

I have spent so long changing it and editing it but I still feel like its not that great! I also have to include the Rogerson Mnamara case as my main one but I can use other ones to support it

The notification is attached

Was wondering if you could take a read and tell me if I am answering the question effectively and if my points make sense?

Also it would be really hard for me to add stuff in because I am on the word limit but I can change things

here it is:

There are many factors that affect sentencing decisions and each of these factors try to balance the rights of victims, offenders and society. These factors include aggravating factors which make the offence more serious and mitigating factors which work in favour of explaining the reason and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s actions. Some of these factors were present in the sentencing decisions of RvRogerson RvMcnamara (2016) cases

Aggravating factors help balance the rights of the victim as they could lead to an increased sentence. Rogerson and McNamara were both given life sentences because of these aggravating factors; the disposal of the victim’s body at sea which was called both “cruel” and “insensitive” and was done so the victim would never be found. A further aggravating factor was the offenders intention to sell 2.78kg of the illegal drug ice and the men killed the victim for the purpose of financial gain which was stated to be “no different than contract killing” by the NSW crown prosecutor. Another aggravating factor was the use of the weapon to kill the victim and the fact that the crime was committed in company. Neither man had shown any remorse over the crime they committed and as the verdicts were handed out.  Aggravating factors generally heavily influence sentencing decisions as they help balance the rights of the victims by bringing awareness to their experiences through the understanding of the circumstances and details surrounding the crime

A person’s prior convictions can be an aggravating factor, and generally increase the length of a their sentence whereas being a first time offender with no criminal record is seen as a mitigating factor and can entail a lesser sentence. Rogerson’s  prior convictions included perverting the course of justice and lying to the 1999 Police Integrity Commission which entailed prison time as well as being dismissed from the police force, he allegedly was involved with a drug dealer in the past. Rogerson shot and killed heroin dealer Warren Lanfranchi and when his girlfriend (Sallie-Anne Huckstepp) and Lynn Woodward gave evidence against Rogerson they were found dead, and missing respectively. He was also charged with conspiring to bribe and kill fellow police officer Michael Drury however he was later acquitted. Prior convictions, can be seen as impeding on the offender’s rights as the judge may gave the offender a harsher sentence based on their past and on their previous “bad character” rather than just the crime in question.

A major aggravating factor is whether or not a crime is premeditated as planned crimes have longer sentences . The offenders in the case were both former police officers who abused their knowledge of the law and planned the murder in advance using their experience and training. McNamara had taken his boat out on the day before the murder and Rogerson visited the shed to remove some office chairs. McNamara had met with the victim 27 times before the murder, gained his trust and claimed  that the meetings were for a book about asian crime gangs he was writing however there was no evidence presented to support this. McNamara also bought an untraceable white station wagon before the crime which was used to transport the victim’s body. Justice Bellow stated the crime was “extensive in its planning, brutal in its execution and callous in its aftermath”  and the victim was “executed in cold blood, just as the offenders had planned.” The consideration of this factor helped balance the rights of the victim and society as it was clear in achieving justice, protecting society from experiencing further crimes and understanding what happened to the victim

Another factor that affects sentencing decision is whether or not the accused pleaded guilty. Both Mcnamara and Rogerson pleaded not guilty, each presenting their own version of what happened, pointing the blame to each other. The judge however rejected both of their accounts and despite the fact that he couldn't find beyond reasonable doubt who had pulled the trigger as a result he sentenced both men to life imprisonment. If the offender pleads guilty their sentence will often be shorter than if they pleaded not guilty and were found guilty as they are assisting the authorities, this helps balance the rights of the offenders as they are given a choice and the decision they make is taken into consideration. This also helps balance the rights of society and the victim as if a person is found guilty when they pleaded not guilty, through receiving a longer sentence justice and protection are provided for both society and the victim.

Victim impact statements (VIS) can be taken into consideration in sentencing decisions, it is written by the victim or the victim’s family about the impact the crime has had on them, heard at the time of sentencing. Jamie Gao’s family stated “the courts can’t lessen the term of Jamie’s death or the impact that his death, the investigation and ensuing trial has had on our family,” however they thanked the police, the DPP and the judge for sentencing both men to life imprisonment. VIS have thoroughly helped victims in achieving their rights in being able to express the consequences of the offender’s action.

Although there are no mitigating factors taken into consideration when sentencing McNamara and Rogerson, some of these could include: the offender being youthful or inexperienced, showing remorse, being provoked or acting under duress and good character. These factors are essential in helping offenders achieve their rights. However mitigating factors can also impede on the rights of victims as portrayed in the R v. Gus Forbes (1980) case. An aboriginal man was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for murder and 8 years for rape, however the judge took Aboriginal customary law into consideration and the fact that rape is not as seriously regarded in Aboriginal communities. Consequently, the judge gave a more lenient sentence which isn't in the interest of the victim and society's rights for fairness and justice. As stated by the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws  “It can be argued that a special sentencing discretion of this kind would be discriminatory or divisive, since it would allow some Aboriginal defendants the possibility of mitigating their sentence in a way not available to other persons.

RvRogerson, RvMcNamara (2016) balanced the rights of victims and society through consideration of aggravating factors and subsequent life sentence, however the rights of the offender weren't always upheld due to Rogerson’s prior convictions.  Factors affecting sentencing decisions whether mitigating or aggravating attempt to balance the rights of victims, society and offenders, however they are not always successful.

[elysepopplewell]

Hey I have this essay I have to to do on this question due monday:

Assess the extent to which factors affecting sentencing decisions balance the rights of the victims, offenders, and society

I have spent so long changing it and editing it but I still feel like its not that great! I also have to include the Rogerson Mnamara case as my main one but I can use other ones to support it

The notification is attached

Was wondering if you could take a read and tell me if I am answering the question effectively and if my points make sense?

Also it would be really hard for me to add stuff in because I am on the word limit but I can change things

Hey parthie! We definitely can take a look at this I'm keen to know what you think of the Rogerson and McNamara cases? Do you find them useful as a legal student?

The comments are in bold in the spoiler below

Spoiler

There are many factors that affect sentencing decisions and each of these factors try It's super minor - but "try" personifies the factors. "The intention of each factor is to balance...'' to balance the rights of victims, offenders and society. These factors include aggravating factors which make the offence more serious and mitigating factors which work in favour of explaining the reason and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s actions. Some of these factors were present in the sentencing decisions of RvRogerson RvMcnamara (2016) cases. This last sentence doesn't add anything to your argument except name a case - I'd cut this out to make room for your evaluation. Introduce your cases in the next paragraph. You haven't actually made your judgement about how successful these factors are, which is what the question is asking you. The very first thing you should be focusing on is making a judgement, and right now we don't have that. You could say that you think each party is eloquently treated in sentencing, or you could say victim's rights are least eloquently addressed, or you could say that each case holds a different level of justice for each party. Whatever your judgement is, make it! It's probably safest to go with a "the rights of the victim, society, and offender are balanced by different factors in the sentencing decision, but often the respect for rights of one party will compromise another's." Something like this opens you up to discussion, but that's just me adding my own twist to it. You could just say each case is unique, but generally the law adequately balances rights. Whatever you truly believe is worth arguing, make that statement early.

Aggravating factors help balance the rights of the victim as they could lead to an increased sentence. Rogerson and McNamara were both given life sentences because of these aggravating factors; the disposal of the victim’s body at sea which was called both “cruel” and “insensitive” and was done so the victim would never be found. Who called it cruel and insensitive? Quote this to give it authority. I would also identify what an aggravating factor is and when it is considered and by whom. This shouldn't be more than a sentence, but simply identify that you understand the place in the process where aggravating factors are considered. A further aggravating factor was the offenders intention to sell 2.78kg of the illegal drug ice and the men killed the victim for the purpose of financial gain which was stated to be “no different than contract killing” by the NSW crown prosecutor. Another aggravating factor was the use of the weapon to kill the victim and the fact that the crime was committed in company. Neither man had shown any remorse over the crime they committed and as the verdicts were handed out.  Until this point: there is no analysis. All we have is examples of aggravating factors in the case, rather than linking to the argument. So I would cut down this middle bit by listing some of the aggravating factors in one sentence, and then evaluate exactly how this supports society and the victim (usually these go together) and then talk about how this balances the rights of the offenders in a separate sentence so that you can compare and contrast, thus supporting your argument. Aggravating factors generally heavily influence sentencing decisions as they help balance the rights of the victims by bringing awareness to their experiences through the understanding of the circumstances and details surrounding the crime

A person’s prior convictions can be an aggravating factor, and generally increase the length of a their sentence whereas being a first time offender with no criminal record is seen may be seen as...it isn't always. The worst murder case in history won't be mitigated because it is a first time offence. as a mitigating factor and can entail a lesser sentence. Rogerson’s  prior convictions included perverting the course of justice and lying to the 1999 Police Integrity Commission which entailed prison time as well as being dismissed from the police force, he allegedly was involved with a drug dealer in the past. Was this cited in court? If you can obtain the court documents and quote this, I would! Rogerson shot and killed heroin dealer Warren Lanfranchi and when his girlfriend (Sallie-Anne Huckstepp) and Lynn Woodward gave evidence against Rogerson they were found dead, and missing respectively. He was also charged with conspiring to bribe and kill fellow police officer Michael Drury however he was later acquitted. Prior convictions, can be seen as impeding on the offender’s rights as the judge may gave the offender a harsher sentence based on their past and on their previous “bad character” rather than just the crime in question. Again, the evaluation is missing. No doubt you know the cases well, but we haven't actually specifically looked at victim, offender, society. Do mitigating factors support the victim? Not really. Do they support society? Mm, potentially less time the tax payer is paying for someone to be in jail. Do they support the offender? Yes, because it takes into account each individual circumstance. We need to keep bringing it back to this evaluation!

A major aggravating factor is whether or not a crime is premeditated as planned crimes have longer sentences . The offenders in the case were both former police officers who abused their knowledge of the law and planned the murder in advance using their experience and training. McNamara had taken his boat out on the day before the murder and Rogerson visited the shed to remove some office chairs. McNamara had met with the victim 27 times before the murder, gained his trust and claimed  that the meetings were for a book about asian crime gangs he was writing however there was no evidence presented to support this. McNamara also bought an untraceable white station wagon before the crime which was used to transport the victim’s body. This is 127 words with no judgement or argument. You're identifying another type of aggravating factor but not actually linking it to an argument. Justice Bellow stated the crime was “extensive in its planning, brutal in its execution and callous in its aftermath”  and the victim was “executed in cold blood, just as the offenders had planned.” The consideration of this factor helped balance the rights of the victim and society as it was clear in achieving justice, protecting society from experiencing further crimes and understanding what happened to the victim This is a nice little piece of analysis! If you can embed this kind of reflection on the facts several times in a paragraph, twice minimum, you're making great progress.

Another factor that affects sentencing decision is whether or not the accused pleaded guilty. Both Mcnamara and Rogerson pleaded not guilty, each presenting their own version of what happened, pointing the blame to each other. The judge however rejected both of their accounts and despite the fact that he couldn't find beyond reasonable doubt who had pulled the trigger as a result he sentenced both men to life imprisonment. If the offender pleads guilty their sentence will often be shorter than if they pleaded not guilty and were found guilty as they are assisting the authorities, this helps balance the rights of the offenders as they are given a choice and the decision they make is taken into consideration. This also helps balance the rights of society and the victim as if a person is found guilty when they pleaded not guilty, through receiving a longer sentence justice and protection are provided for both society and the victim.

Victim impact statements (VIS) can be taken into consideration in sentencing decisions, it is written by the victim or the victim’s family about the impact the crime has had on them, heard at the time of sentencing. Jamie Gao’s family stated “the courts can’t lessen the term of Jamie’s death or the impact that his death, the investigation and ensuing trial has had on our family,” however they thanked the police, the DPP and the judge for sentencing both men to life imprisonment. VIS have thoroughly helped victims in achieving their rights in being able to express the consequences of the offender’s action. This is a great spot for discussion: When are VISs not useful in balancing the rights? Look at some domestic violence cases like R V Osland where the VIS was delivered poorly due to trauma.

Although there are no mitigating factors taken into consideration when sentencing McNamara and Rogerson, some of these could include: the offender being youthful or inexperienced, showing remorse, being provoked or acting under duress and good character. These factors are essential in helping offenders achieve their rights. However mitigating factors can also impede on the rights of victims as portrayed in the R v. Gus Forbes (1980) case. An aboriginal man was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for murder and 8 years for rape, however the judge took Aboriginal customary law into consideration and the fact that rape is not as seriously regarded in Aboriginal communities. Consequently, the judge gave a more lenient sentence which isn't in the interest of the victim and society's rights for fairness and justice. As stated by the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws  “It can be argued that a special sentencing discretion of this kind would be discriminatory or divisive, since it would allow some Aboriginal defendants the possibility of mitigating their sentence in a way not available to other persons.

RvRogerson, RvMcNamara (2016) balanced the rights of victims and society through consideration of aggravating factors and subsequent life sentence, however the rights of the offender weren't always upheld due to Rogerson’s prior convictions.  Factors affecting sentencing decisions whether mitigating or aggravating attempt to balance the rights of victims, society and offenders, however they are not always successful.

The first step to improving your response is to make a judgement at the beginning, and keep supporting the judgement with facts throughout. I think a reshuffle of your paragraphs could be useful. Your first three body paragraphs could be condensed by about half, and put into just two paragraphs. So much of the paragraph is describing the factors of sentencing, rather than being evaluative. Perhaps one sentence should be describing, and the next four should be evaluating. Currently it's in reverse. Remember to address the victim, society, and the offender in each reflection on the system. The VIS area is very interesting and can definitely be opened up for a rich discussion! Do VIS balance the rights of a victim when the victim is dead and there's no family to deliver it on their behalf? What does society lose when a poor sentencing judgement is made?

When you thread your judgement clearly through each paragraph, you'll see a cohesiveness come over your essay. I think you're being caught up in using the case your teacher assigned, and it's leading you to describe the case rather than make evaluations on the sentencing process and then use the case as support. Perhaps I'm suggesting you should switch the prominence of the case for analysis! That way your essay will be very strong.

Let me know if you need more help before this is due!

[parthie]

Hey parthie! We definitely can take a look at this I'm keen to know what you think of the Rogerson and McNamara cases? Do you find them useful as a legal student?

The comments are in bold in the spoiler below

Spoiler

There are many factors that affect sentencing decisions and each of these factors try It's super minor - but "try" personifies the factors. "The intention of each factor is to balance...'' to balance the rights of victims, offenders and society. These factors include aggravating factors which make the offence more serious and mitigating factors which work in favour of explaining the reason and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s actions. Some of these factors were present in the sentencing decisions of RvRogerson RvMcnamara (2016) cases. This last sentence doesn't add anything to your argument except name a case - I'd cut this out to make room for your evaluation. Introduce your cases in the next paragraph. You haven't actually made your judgement about how successful these factors are, which is what the question is asking you. The very first thing you should be focusing on is making a judgement, and right now we don't have that. You could say that you think each party is eloquently treated in sentencing, or you could say victim's rights are least eloquently addressed, or you could say that each case holds a different level of justice for each party. Whatever your judgement is, make it! It's probably safest to go with a "the rights of the victim, society, and offender are balanced by different factors in the sentencing decision, but often the respect for rights of one party will compromise another's." Something like this opens you up to discussion, but that's just me adding my own twist to it. You could just say each case is unique, but generally the law adequately balances rights. Whatever you truly believe is worth arguing, make that statement early.

Aggravating factors help balance the rights of the victim as they could lead to an increased sentence. Rogerson and McNamara were both given life sentences because of these aggravating factors; the disposal of the victim’s body at sea which was called both “cruel” and “insensitive” and was done so the victim would never be found. Who called it cruel and insensitive? Quote this to give it authority. I would also identify what an aggravating factor is and when it is considered and by whom. This shouldn't be more than a sentence, but simply identify that you understand the place in the process where aggravating factors are considered. A further aggravating factor was the offenders intention to sell 2.78kg of the illegal drug ice and the men killed the victim for the purpose of financial gain which was stated to be “no different than contract killing” by the NSW crown prosecutor. Another aggravating factor was the use of the weapon to kill the victim and the fact that the crime was committed in company. Neither man had shown any remorse over the crime they committed and as the verdicts were handed out.  Until this point: there is no analysis. All we have is examples of aggravating factors in the case, rather than linking to the argument. So I would cut down this middle bit by listing some of the aggravating factors in one sentence, and then evaluate exactly how this supports society and the victim (usually these go together) and then talk about how this balances the rights of the offenders in a separate sentence so that you can compare and contrast, thus supporting your argument. Aggravating factors generally heavily influence sentencing decisions as they help balance the rights of the victims by bringing awareness to their experiences through the understanding of the circumstances and details surrounding the crime

A person’s prior convictions can be an aggravating factor, and generally increase the length of a their sentence whereas being a first time offender with no criminal record is seen may be seen as...it isn't always. The worst murder case in history won't be mitigated because it is a first time offence. as a mitigating factor and can entail a lesser sentence. Rogerson’s  prior convictions included perverting the course of justice and lying to the 1999 Police Integrity Commission which entailed prison time as well as being dismissed from the police force, he allegedly was involved with a drug dealer in the past. Was this cited in court? If you can obtain the court documents and quote this, I would! Rogerson shot and killed heroin dealer Warren Lanfranchi and when his girlfriend (Sallie-Anne Huckstepp) and Lynn Woodward gave evidence against Rogerson they were found dead, and missing respectively. He was also charged with conspiring to bribe and kill fellow police officer Michael Drury however he was later acquitted. Prior convictions, can be seen as impeding on the offender’s rights as the judge may gave the offender a harsher sentence based on their past and on their previous “bad character” rather than just the crime in question. Again, the evaluation is missing. No doubt you know the cases well, but we haven't actually specifically looked at victim, offender, society. Do mitigating factors support the victim? Not really. Do they support society? Mm, potentially less time the tax payer is paying for someone to be in jail. Do they support the offender? Yes, because it takes into account each individual circumstance. We need to keep bringing it back to this evaluation!

A major aggravating factor is whether or not a crime is premeditated as planned crimes have longer sentences . The offenders in the case were both former police officers who abused their knowledge of the law and planned the murder in advance using their experience and training. McNamara had taken his boat out on the day before the murder and Rogerson visited the shed to remove some office chairs. McNamara had met with the victim 27 times before the murder, gained his trust and claimed  that the meetings were for a book about asian crime gangs he was writing however there was no evidence presented to support this. McNamara also bought an untraceable white station wagon before the crime which was used to transport the victim’s body. This is 127 words with no judgement or argument. You're identifying another type of aggravating factor but not actually linking it to an argument. Justice Bellow stated the crime was “extensive in its planning, brutal in its execution and callous in its aftermath”  and the victim was “executed in cold blood, just as the offenders had planned.” The consideration of this factor helped balance the rights of the victim and society as it was clear in achieving justice, protecting society from experiencing further crimes and understanding what happened to the victim This is a nice little piece of analysis! If you can embed this kind of reflection on the facts several times in a paragraph, twice minimum, you're making great progress.

Another factor that affects sentencing decision is whether or not the accused pleaded guilty. Both Mcnamara and Rogerson pleaded not guilty, each presenting their own version of what happened, pointing the blame to each other. The judge however rejected both of their accounts and despite the fact that he couldn't find beyond reasonable doubt who had pulled the trigger as a result he sentenced both men to life imprisonment. If the offender pleads guilty their sentence will often be shorter than if they pleaded not guilty and were found guilty as they are assisting the authorities, this helps balance the rights of the offenders as they are given a choice and the decision they make is taken into consideration. This also helps balance the rights of society and the victim as if a person is found guilty when they pleaded not guilty, through receiving a longer sentence justice and protection are provided for both society and the victim.

Victim impact statements (VIS) can be taken into consideration in sentencing decisions, it is written by the victim or the victim’s family about the impact the crime has had on them, heard at the time of sentencing. Jamie Gao’s family stated “the courts can’t lessen the term of Jamie’s death or the impact that his death, the investigation and ensuing trial has had on our family,” however they thanked the police, the DPP and the judge for sentencing both men to life imprisonment. VIS have thoroughly helped victims in achieving their rights in being able to express the consequences of the offender’s action. This is a great spot for discussion: When are VISs not useful in balancing the rights? Look at some domestic violence cases like R V Osland where the VIS was delivered poorly due to trauma.

Although there are no mitigating factors taken into consideration when sentencing McNamara and Rogerson, some of these could include: the offender being youthful or inexperienced, showing remorse, being provoked or acting under duress and good character. These factors are essential in helping offenders achieve their rights. However mitigating factors can also impede on the rights of victims as portrayed in the R v. Gus Forbes (1980) case. An aboriginal man was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for murder and 8 years for rape, however the judge took Aboriginal customary law into consideration and the fact that rape is not as seriously regarded in Aboriginal communities. Consequently, the judge gave a more lenient sentence which isn't in the interest of the victim and society's rights for fairness and justice. As stated by the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws  “It can be argued that a special sentencing discretion of this kind would be discriminatory or divisive, since it would allow some Aboriginal defendants the possibility of mitigating their sentence in a way not available to other persons.

RvRogerson, RvMcNamara (2016) balanced the rights of victims and society through consideration of aggravating factors and subsequent life sentence, however the rights of the offender weren't always upheld due to Rogerson’s prior convictions.  Factors affecting sentencing decisions whether mitigating or aggravating attempt to balance the rights of victims, society and offenders, however they are not always successful.

The first step to improving your response is to make a judgement at the beginning, and keep supporting the judgement with facts throughout. I think a reshuffle of your paragraphs could be useful. Your first three body paragraphs could be condensed by about half, and put into just two paragraphs. So much of the paragraph is describing the factors of sentencing, rather than being evaluative. Perhaps one sentence should be describing, and the next four should be evaluating. Currently it's in reverse. Remember to address the victim, society, and the offender in each reflection on the system. The VIS area is very interesting and can definitely be opened up for a rich discussion! Do VIS balance the rights of a victim when the victim is dead and there's no family to deliver it on their behalf? What does society lose when a poor sentencing judgement is made?

When you thread your judgement clearly through each paragraph, you'll see a cohesiveness come over your essay. I think you're being caught up in using the case your teacher assigned, and it's leading you to describe the case rather than make evaluations on the sentencing process and then use the case as support. Perhaps I'm suggesting you should switch the prominence of the case for analysis! That way your essay will be very strong.

Let me know if you need more help before this is due!

Thanks so much Elyse!!! This has helped me so much!! I just have a few questions

Are you saying that I should integrate my evaluation into my evidence rather than having evidence than evaluation in a paragraph??

For VIS could you say that they are compromising the rights of offenders through the fact they they are "construed as promoting harsher punishments against defendants who murder people who have a family member willing to make a statement, as opposed to victims that do not."

[jamonwindeyer]

Thanks so much Elyse!!! This has helped me so much!! I just have a few questions

Are you saying that I should integrate my evaluation into my evidence rather than having evidence than evaluation in a paragraph??

For VIS could you say that they are compromising the rights of offenders through the fact they they are "construed as promoting harsher punishments against defendants who murder people who have a family member willing to make a statement, as opposed to victims that do not."

I'll tag in for Elyse; being in Venice it's like 5am(?) for her, want to make sure you get your question answered before your task is due tomorrow! She might tag in too

I think that is exactly what Elyse is suggesting - And it is the best way to go. Every time you introduce a piece of evidence, you should be analysing/evaluating it. In your response, you had a lot of sentences that were just describing aspects of the case, rather than saying how they recognised rights of victims/offenders/society, or how effectively these rights were balanced

You could definitely say that! The VIS will always primarily protect the rights of the victim, but in terms of linking it to the rights of the offender, I think that works well! Remember to give the source of that quote to give yourself a bit of authority (quotes from reputable sources/authority figures are cool)

[parthie]

I'll tag in for Elyse; being in Venice it's like 5am(?) for her, want to make sure you get your question answered before your task is due tomorrow! She might tag in too

I think that is exactly what Elyse is suggesting - And it is the best way to go. Every time you introduce a piece of evidence, you should be analysing/evaluating it. In your response, you had a lot of sentences that were just describing aspects of the case, rather than saying how they recognised rights of victims/offenders/society, or how effectively these rights were balanced

You could definitely say that! The VIS will always primarily protect the rights of the victim, but in terms of linking it to the rights of the offender, I think that works well! Remember to give the source of that quote to give yourself a bit of authority (quotes from reputable sources/authority figures are cool)

Thankyou so much!!!

One last question (sorry) I am a little confused as why remorse is seen as a mitigating factor and how this helps the offender??

Thanks again

[jamonwindeyer]

Thankyou so much!!!

One last question (sorry) I am a little confused as why remorse is seen as a mitigating factor and how this helps the offender??

Thanks again

Sure! So remorse is an interesting one, but look at it this way.

Say you had two people of the same age and background in front of you who had both committed the same murder (as much as that is possible). Person A expresses great remorse, is visibly upset by what has transpired, and expresses a desire to change and rehabilitate. Person B expresses no remorse and is happy they committed the crime. Who gets the harsher punishment?

Arguably, Person B gets a harsher punishment. They have far lower chance of rehabilitation and high chance of re-offending; their punishment is more severe.

Essentially, expression of remorse is a symbol of the offenders desire to rehabilitate and become a functioning, law abiding member of society. Accepting remorse from the offender is accepting their rights to rehabilitative sentencing enshrined in human rights documentation

[parthie]

Sure! So remorse is an interesting one, but look at it this way.

Say you had two people of the same age and background in front of you who had both committed the same murder (as much as that is possible). Person A expresses great remorse, is visibly upset by what has transpired, and expresses a desire to change and rehabilitate. Person B expresses no remorse and is happy they committed the crime. Who gets the harsher punishment?

Arguably, Person B gets a harsher punishment. They have far lower chance of rehabilitation and high chance of re-offending; their punishment is more severe.

Essentially, expression of remorse is a symbol of the offenders desire to rehabilitate and become a functioning, law abiding member of society. Accepting remorse from the offender is accepting their rights to rehabilitative sentencing enshrined in human rights documentation

Thanks so much for all your help!! Don't know what I wouldve done without it!!!!!

[jamonwindeyer]

Thanks so much for all your help!! Don't know what I wouldve done without it!!!!!

Happy to help! Best of luck with submitting the task tomorrow

[Neilab]

Hey! Sorry once again for the delay in getting you some feedback; so glad you enjoyed the lectures and hope these forums come to be really useful throughout the year!

Your feedback is attached below in the spoiler - My comments are in bold

Spoiler

Assess the extent to which the categories of crime reflect moral and ethical standards

The categories of crime are largely effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of the community but somewhat lack effectiveness in representing these standards for certain drug offences. This is an awesome sentence - But it feels a little sporadic. It's not been 'set up' properly. I'd like to see you start with something like "The categories of crime are essential in _______." Give a bit of context! Moral and ethical standards are demonstrated in the categories of crime through the formation and enforcement of the Crimes Act 1900 legislation, comprising of the categories of crime to protect the community. Good. However, there has been great debate and rhetoric in the effectiveness of convicting drug offences to protect the greater society at large as the laws fundamental aim. A little unclear in that sentence, I think expression could be improved. The debate addresses whether drug offences are merely a self-imposed act to only harm the individual and not the greater community at large. In this way, the categories of crime mostly reflect moral and ethical standards but may lack the accurate representation of these standards on the category of drug offences. Good introduction! Sets up the argument and lays out your plan of attack - Nice! Work on clarifying expression and adding a bit of context to the start.

Offences against the person involve some form of harm inflicted on an individual, consequently making it a significant offence under the categories of crime to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society. Normally I would say to steer clear of facts - We know what an offence against the person is and so normally it would be unnecessary to mention. However, this is a weird question and I think it works well here. This is demonstrated through inclusion of such offences in the Crimes Act (1900) ,which comprises of the categories of crime to protect individuals and the greater community. You stated this in the intro - Feels a little bit throwaway here. Society’s unacceptance of the unlawful killing of a person sees murder as the most serious offence, often resulting in convicted offenders receiving heavy punishments and substantial jail-time. 'Unacceptance' isn't a word - Maybe 'condemnation', perhaps? This is evident in the case of R v Milat (1996) where the accused was sentenced to penal servitude for life. A more recent case study could be beneficial; even as an addition not a replacement! Additionally, Homicide is categorised under 5 offences that are all recognised in the Crimes Act 1900 to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as it protects the community at large. How do the differing categories assist with this though? How is it more effective than a simpler, broader punishment. This highlights the categories of crime as a pure reflection of moral and ethical standards. Additionally assault and sex offences, such as sexual assault, are regarded by society as crimes that can inflict physical and psychological harm to a person in an unlawful way. This is demonstrated in the case of R v Scaf (2002), where one of the accused, Bilal Scaf, was sentenced to 31 years imprisonment. Scaf was moved to maximum security in Goulburn Goal after prison officers uncovered plans by his fellow inmates, at the Long Bay Correction Centre, to inject him with HIV-infected blood. How is this additional information relevant to your argument? Whenever you give an example, you MUST link it to the argument you are making. As a result, the inclusion of sexual assault and its various relevant categories, exemplify the categories of crime as a reflection of moral and ethical standards, even amongst inmates. In this way, the categories of crime evidently reflect moral and ethical standards to protect both the individual and the community. Solid paragraph - Ensure that all your examples are relevant and that you are really exploring your argument thoroughly.

While many of the offences against the person reflect contemporary moral and ethical standards, it could be argued that the same is not true for certain drug offences. Fabulous opener. Currently, some drugs that cause harm are illegal, such as heroin and cannabis, while others, such as alcohol and tobacco, are not illegal. The National Drug Strategy Household Survey (2013) (NDSHS) found that 40% of Australians consider the excessive use of alcohol to be the “drug issue that people feel is of the most concern to the general community”. In addition, 26% of Australians over the age of 14 had been a victim of an alcohol-related incident and around 8% had experienced physical abuse from an alcohol-affected person. Nice inclusion of statistics - How does this relate to your argument though? However, the same survey found that “the most supported policy to reduce alcohol harm was to establish more severe penalties for drink driving (85%) followed by stricter enforcement of the law against supplying to minors (84%)”. This would suggest that although alcohol is perceived to be of the most concern, society’s values and ethics accept alcohol as a legitimate drug that requires regulation, rather than criminalisation. This seemed a bit more like a regurgitation of statistics than an actual argument, if that makes sense? So you've given some great data, but not really done a lot to link that to the idea of moral/ethical standards (it disappears after the first sentence).

The NDSHS also noted that tobacco is the major cause of cancer in Australia, accounting for about 20-30% of cancer cases. However, as tobacco usage has declined significantly between 2010 and 2013 (from 15% to 12% of people aged 14 and older), people are less inclined to perceive it as a drug of most concern to the general community. The survey also found that society supports policies aimed at reducing harm and preventing supply to minors, with around 90% of people supporting such causes. Additionally, while the harm caused by tobacco is great, there is no evidence to suggest the public would support tobacco’s criminalisation. This would suggest that society’s values and ethics are represented in current drug offences, to the extent they do not criminalise alcohol and tobacco. So I love the point you are making here - That the non-criminalisation of these drugs reflects the current sociopolitical standards. Fabulous! But it feels again like this is more statistics than argument - I reckon you could blend this with the previous paragraph.

Additionally, the criminalisation of drugs such as cannabis fail to deter individuals due to the ambiguity of the law and its disregard by society. The idea of moral/ethical standards should appear in your first sentence - This shows your argument continues to be at the front of your mind!  In 2013, a study by the NDSHS found that around 42% of people in Australia aged 14 years or older had illicitly used drugs with almost 3 million of these people using these drugs in the last 12 months. These statistics suggest that the uses of illicit drugs are mostly common within the broader society. Link to your argument. Another finding was the statistics in regards to victims involved in drug-related incidents. A huge 8.3% of the population had been in a drug-related incident, with verbal abuse being the most frequently reported incident reported overall. Within this number 3.1% had experienced some form of physical abuse under the influence of illicit drugs. These proportions are significantly less than the equivalent for alcohol. In addition, a 2012 article from ‘The Conversation’ by Alison Ritter, Professor & Specialist in Drug Policy at UNSW Australia, highlighted the public’s opinion on the support of the decriminalising of cannabis. Nice inclusion of media - I love it! But again, link to argument. The recent national survey found that 80% of Australians support the decriminalisation of cannabis. The enormous figure demonstrates the notion that, despite the harm caused by drugs; it is not a factor that causes harm as great as tobacco and alcohol. The report also suggested that a large proportion of the population has consumed such substances and an overwhelming number support the criminalisation of some illicit drugs. In this way, it can be argued that the category of drug offences, primarily in relation to cannabis, is not a reflection of a number of Australians morals and ethics. Once again, some great information and ideas coming through here but it's not quite being linked to the greater Thesis effectively. It is hinted, and if I do some thinking I can make the connections. But I shouldn't have to do that work; it should be clear as day!

The categories of crime are mostly a reflection of the Australian society’s morals and ethical values but arguably lack the appropriate representation of a large number of Australians views towards drug offences primarily involving cannabis. Excellent start to your conclusion. Offences against the person is a category of crime that reflects the moral and ethical standards of society at large demonstrated through inclusion of such offences in the Crimes Act 1900 legislation. However with certain drug offences it is certain that this is not the case. Great - You are making a very obvious and clear judgement here. Society’s values and ethics are represented in current drug offences; to the extent they do not criminalise alcohol and tobacco. This extends to the notion that whilst alcohol is perceived to be of the most concern, society’s values and ethics accept alcohol and tobacco as drugs that require regulation rather than criminalisation. A little too much restatement here - Your conclusion should VERY briefly summarise your arguments. Right now its a tad long. However, the criminalisation of drugs such as cannabis fail to deter individuals due to the ambiguity of the law and its disregard by society. The recent national survey found that 80% of Australians support the decriminalisation of cannabis creating the argument that certain categories of drug offences, primarily in relation to cannabis, fail to reflect a number of Australians values and ethics. Never introduce any new/old statistics in your conclusion. All your ideas/evidence should be done by now - A conclusion is just summation!  In this way, the categories of crime mostly accomplish an accurate representation of the moral and ethical standards of society but lack this accuracy in relation to drug offences. This issue requires rectification through law reform to reflect the current societies moral and ethical standards in order to balance the rights of the individual and the needs of the state. Great finish, nicely done.

Right, so let me prelude by saying: This question suuuucks. It is not nice. Definitely not an essay-worthy question - You can't analyse the categories of crime. That isn't a thing, at least in my opinion. So, take this feedback with that in mind, because I think you are tackling a very difficult question that isn't very easy to access.

One thing you are doing well; fantastic evidence. Cases, stats, laws, media - Some excellent inclusions. You could include more laws and more cases, of course, but this is a great foundation and it shows a commitment to proving your point. That is fabulous! What I want you to do is keep the argument at the front of your mind - How does this piece of evidence make your argument more convincing? How does it relate? Many times you introduced a statistic or a media article but didn't link it to your argument. You must always do this!

Really, this is the main bit of feedback I'd have at this point, in addition to the comments throughout. Getting your argument more obvious and more cohesive. I know what it is, but it could be expressed more clearly and more succinctly. Start every paragraph with a sentence linking to your argument - 'Moral/ethical standards' should always appear in that first sentence. It should appear frequently throughout the paragraph as well. You could also benefit from a more clear definition of your argument in the introduction - Primarily, a clear definition of moral/ethical standards and WHY the categories of crime should reflect them.

My feedback for this essay isn't great, I admit, because its such a weird question! But I hope this helps in a small way and that you'll be back for more feedback in the future! Let me know if you needed anything clarified

Thank you!! The essay question was the weirdest thing I have ever come across in my life... more than a bit odd! Managed to adopt all of your advice  and it's looking a lot better now!