Legal Study 3/4 New Study Design

[JasonH168]

Hey guys:
   Please post your comments below for thoughts about the new study design, for example: whether you like the principle of justice, what do you think the focus has become
 
Cheerss!!

[MissSmiley]

Hey guys:
   Please post your comments below for thoughts about the new study design, for example: whether you like the principle of justice, what do you think the focus has become
 
Cheerss!!

Yeah, I absolutely love the new study design!
Whilst it is harder, as it involves using those extremely critical thinking skills when you're answering questions, at the same time, the principles of justice and applying all that knowledge is going to be so much more practical to us for the future (when we're studying law at Uni) because by the end of the year, we haven't just memorised chunks of theory but linked it carefully and authentically to 'real world' examples.

I somewhat feel like the previous study design limited that focus on synthesising info to evaluate it in terms of attaining justice. More focus was on was assessing the features of our court system  (whether it be civil or criminal) and just sort of defining key features of our Parliament, but this study design stands out for being so lively in actually making use of that info to everyday life! (if you know what I mean?)
So it's gonna give us a really strong foundation for Law in University, I think! (that's if you want to study it in Uni!!)

What do you think about the study design?

[monif]

I like this new study design! I actually find it easier than the old one tbh and I didn't learn much last year

[JasonH168]

Yea I do agree with you. But do you find like equality and fairness so similar thou??? what is your way of distinguishing them apart??

Yeah, I absolutely love the new study design!
Whilst it is harder, as it involves using those extremely critical thinking skills when you're answering questions, at the same time, the principles of justice and applying all that knowledge is going to be so much more practical to us for the future (when we're studying law at Uni) because by the end of the year, we haven't just memorised chunks of theory but linked it carefully and authentically to 'real world' examples.

I somewhat feel like the previous study design limited that focus on synthesising info to evaluate it in terms of attaining justice. More focus was on was assessing the features of our court system  (whether it be civil or criminal) and just sort of defining key features of our Parliament, but this study design stands out for being so lively in actually making use of that info to everyday life! (if you know what I mean?)
So it's gonna give us a really strong foundation for Law in University, I think! (that's if you want to study it in Uni!!)

What do you think about the study design?

[AbdulM]

To quickly distinguish Equality from Fairness albeit they are extremely similar, Equality refers to how the justice system treats individuals in a court case while fairness refers to the aspects of the justice system like the impartiality of Judges and the ability for parties to control their own cases that represents fairness.

Feel free to correct me

[MissSmiley]

Yea I do agree with you. But do you find like equality and fairness so similar thou??? what is your way of distinguishing them apart??

Definitely agree to what AbdulM has said!
Just adding to that, equality seems to sound more 'social' to me, in that people should have equal rights, opportunities and should not be discriminated or prejudiced against, due to their status in society.
Whereas fairness, I'm reiterating AbdulM's comment, is certainly to do more with the legal system and how it functions to achieve impartiality and gives a fair go to everyone. (e.g. a severe sentence should not be imposed to an offender who has comitted a summary offence, but should be imposed for murder, etc) And yes, the party control is an excellent example of fairness, like AbdulM said.

School hasn't even started and Legal already involves some complex thinking hey?!! 

[Lear]

See this confuses me too.
The textbook defines equality as - Everyone should be treated the same regardless of the different personal characteristics or beliefs (age, gender, religion, ethnicity, cultural background, disability or sexuality)

Meanwhile A+ notes (2018) defines it as - The legal system strives to achieve non-discriminatory outcomes for all who come before it. However, while everyone should be treated the same, the legal system acknowledges that there are differences.

Both are 2018 and I feel they contradict each other. One stating differences don't matter while one says they are to be acknowledged.

Lastly, here is the picture provided by our teacher highlighting the difference between equality and fairness. Does it point out that A+ notes are wrong? I am not sure.

[kamie22]

I like the new study design considering a lot of the constitution stuff has been taken out.

Personally i don't like the whole principles of justice thing, I think that it's just such a small concept that could be covered in one AOS, it does not need to be made as such a big deal, and to be referenced all the time!

But thats just my opinion, I don't plan on studying law so it might be useful for uni idk, but personally that's the only aspect i dont like of it

[Jigsaw]

See this confuses me too.
The textbook defines equality as - Everyone should be treated the same regardless of the different personal characteristics or beliefs (age, gender, religion, ethnicity, cultural background, disability or sexuality)

Meanwhile A+ notes (2018) defines it as - The legal system strives to achieve non-discriminatory outcomes for all who come before it. However, while everyone should be treated the same, the legal system acknowledges that there are differences.

Both are 2018 and I feel they contradict each other. One stating differences don't matter while one says they are to be acknowledged.

Lastly, here is the picture provided by our teacher highlighting the difference between equality and fairness. Does it point out that A+ notes are wrong? I am not sure.
(Image removed from quote.)

Ditto! This is something I also am having trouble understanding, as sources are contradicting each other (especially in terms of the principle of equality!!) On Edrolo too, the presenter also mentions that with equality, differences should be acknowledged and positively discriminated against, to achieve an equal outcome, however my textbook contradicts this :/. Hopefully this will be cleared up when school commences...

[Lear]

Teachers usually go off textbook too. I’m more looking forward to the sample exam for a better understanding.

[hdxx]

See this confuses me too.
The textbook defines equality as - Everyone should be treated the same regardless of the different personal characteristics or beliefs (age, gender, religion, ethnicity, cultural background, disability or sexuality)


Meanwhile A+ notes (2018) defines it as - The legal system strives to achieve non-discriminatory outcomes for all who come before it. However, while everyone should be treated the same, the legal system acknowledges that there are differences.



Both are 2018 and I feel they contradict each other. One stating differences don't matter while one says they are to be acknowledged.

Lastly, here is the picture provided by our teacher highlighting the difference between equality and fairness. Does it point out that A+ notes are wrong? I am not sure.
(Image removed from quote.)

I picked up the exact same thing! It's confusing me even more. I think it may be saying that everyone should be treated fairly yet there are differences that the justice system needs to acknowledge eg disability Im not sure if this is correct

[meganrobyn]

The difference that is confusing people is the difference between procedural equality and substantive equality (or 'outcome' equality). The picture posted above from the teacher I don't find helpful, because it implies that there isn't such a thing as substantive equality.

Basically, procedural equality is about giving everyone the same thing, regardless of need or circumstance. Substantive equality (sometimes called equity) is about trying to achieve equality of outcome - so people might be treated differently based on need or circumstance. They're both types of equality; one is just more meaningful in real life than the other. Our legal system tends to focus a bit more on substantive equality than procedural equality.

In my textbook (printed by CPAP) I define both of them and explain the difference. It's really not a contradiction: it's just applying 'equality' to different stages of the process.

Also, with the difference between equality and fairness, it's really just that equality is a small part of fairness. Fairness requires some measure of equality (usually substantive equality), but it also requires other things. Fairness is a measure against values and what people think 'appropriate' treatment and natural justice demand; it includes equality, but also dignity, impartiality, access, etc.

[JasonH168]

Thank you for your help , would you happen to be able to explain this :

The court tries to strike a balance between an accused being tried without unreasonable delay, whilst still ensuring that both of the parties involved have sufficient time to gather the evidence they need to present the best case possible. Therefore, it can be argued that there is a TENSION between being tried with unreasonable delay, and the principle of fairness in the justice system.

Why is there a tension? like i have the ideas in my head, but i cant get it out from my mind into actual words. Much appreciated!!

To quickly distinguish Equality from Fairness albeit they are extremely similar, Equality refers to how the justice system treats individuals in a court case while fairness refers to the aspects of the justice system like the impartiality of Judges and the ability for parties to control their own cases that represents fairness.

Feel free to correct me

[JasonH168]

Thank you!! Could you please have a look at the question I asked AbduIM as well? cheersss

Definitely agree to what AbdulM has said!
Just adding to that, equality seems to sound more 'social' to me, in that people should have equal rights, opportunities and should not be discriminated or prejudiced against, due to their status in society.
Whereas fairness, I'm reiterating AbdulM's comment, is certainly to do more with the legal system and how it functions to achieve impartiality and gives a fair go to everyone. (e.g. a severe sentence should not be imposed to an offender who has comitted a summary offence, but should be imposed for murder, etc) And yes, the party control is an excellent example of fairness, like AbdulM said.

School hasn't even started and Legal already involves some complex thinking hey?!! 

[meganrobyn]

Thank you for your help , would you happen to be able to explain this :

The court tries to strike a balance between an accused being tried without unreasonable delay, whilst still ensuring that both of the parties involved have sufficient time to gather the evidence they need to present the best case possible. Therefore, it can be argued that there is a TENSION between being tried with unreasonable delay, and the principle of fairness in the justice system.

Why is there a tension? like i have the ideas in my head, but i cant get it out from my mind into actual words. Much appreciated!!

Hmmm, I don't really gel with the wording "there is a TENSION between being tried with unreasonable delay, and the principle of fairness". That doesn't really speak to me.

Basically, fairness demands reasonable delay - you need to be able to prepare, for instance. Unfairness is unreasonable delay.

What kind of delay is reasonable and what is unreasonable? It depends on the case. A lot of rules to do with timeliness in our system are judged on a case-by-case basis. I don't think it's a tension as much as it's a balancing act:

no delay = too fast and unfair
too much delay = too slow and unfair
reasonable delay = fair