Free Legal Essay Marking!

[paigek3]

‘The criminal justice system must treat young offenders differently in order to achieve
justice.’
To what extent is this statement true?

Original

Spoiler

The criminal justice system has various mechanisms to ensure that young offenders’ rights are at the forefront in order for justice to properly be achieved. For young offenders to achieve justice, the criminal justice system must take into account the negative circumstances children could be brought up in, which can result in children engaging in criminal behaviour. In order for this to be effectively executed, the criminal justice system must treat young offenders differently to a large extent. The way in which the criminal justice system has handled the treatment of young offenders is expressed through the notion of doli incapax, the Children’s Court and the three-tiered system of diversionary processes.

The notion of doli incapax reveals how the criminal justice system recognises the need for young offenders to be treated differently in order for justice to be achieved. In most cases, the community and the law recognise that young offenders have not reached full adulthood, therefore limiting their capacity to recognise right from wrong and highlights the need for young offenders to be treated differently in order for justice to achieved. Despite the application of doli incapax being criticised, especially in high-profile cases relating to heinous crimes committed by children, the importance of doli incapax for young offenders to achieve justice, is highlighted in Thomas Crofts paper ‘Doli incapax: Why children deserve its protection’ in which he states that it is consistent with the principles of international law (Convention on the Rights of the Child) in which Australia is a signatory. Furthermore, the case of Corey Davis allowed an 11 year old offender to be acquitted, thus proving that the notion of doli incapax applies. Therefore, it is clear that the criminal justice system uses doli incapax to treat young offenders differently, to ensure that justice is achieved.

The Children’s Court also reveals how the criminal justice system recognises the need for young offenders to be treated differently for justice to be achieved. Established in 1987 under the Children’s Court Act 1987 (NSW), the court has dual roles that deal with criminal matters of children under 18 years and the matters of care and protection of children. The Children’s Court follows procedures laid out under the Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), which acts as a guideline for courts to show regard for children, in order for justice to be achieved. The Children’s Court allows the criminal justice system to achieve justice by allowing children’s proceedings to be conducted in a closed court in order to protect the identity of the child, to ensure differing penalties and sentencing procedures differ from those of ordinary courts. This is evident in the case of a Geelong teenager “guilty of sexually assaulting eight women” being placed on a two-year probation in which the judge ordered the boy to undergo a positive sexuality course as part of his probation. Ultimately, the criminal justice system uses the Children’s Court in order for young offenders to achieve justice.

Lastly, the three-tiered system of diversionary processes also enables the criminal justice system to treat young offenders differently in order for justice to be achieved. Under the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW), children who have committed an offence proceed through a three-tiered system of diversionary processes known as warnings, cautions and youth justice conferences. These programs allow children to have alternative punishments to traditional criminal processes and court penalties, thus allowing the criminal justice system to treat young offenders differently. The use of warnings allow children to have no conditions attached to their offence which is detailed under s15 of the YOA. Police can also issue a more formal warning in the form of a caution, which can only be given if the child admits to the offence or has a legal guardian present. Furthermore, the youth justice conference allows the offender to take responsibility for their actions and to promote better family understanding of the issues. However, a report entitled “Reoffending among young people cautioned by police or who participated in a youth justice conference” reveals that the introduction of police cautions and youth justice conferences have led to a significant increase in recidivism rates. For example, in 2004-05, approximately 1,200 young offenders completed a YJC or received a caution, which resulted in 58% reoffending within the next five years. Nevertheless, the criminal justice system uses the three-tiered system of diversionary processes in order for young offenders to achieve justice.

Therefore, it is clear that the criminal justice system needs to treat young offenders differently in order for justice to be achieved. This has resulted in the notion of doli incapax, which considers the capacity for young offenders to recognise right from wrong, the Children’s Court which allows special provisions for young offenders and the three-tiered system of diversionary processes which allows children to have alternative sentences.

With feedback

Spoiler

The criminal justice system has various mechanisms to ensure that young offenders’ rights are at the forefront in order for justice to properly be achieved "to achieve justice".Simple thesis, however I feel as though you aren't hitting the question correctly. Firstly, you're thesis must include your judgement to the extent you believe the statement is true. i.e. is the statement accurate to a high, partial or limited extent. Secondly, you need to explicitly refer to the statement provided. I know that throughout your essay you've been mentioning aspects of the quote, but try to have actual quotation marks so that you can indicate to the marker that you're directly answering the question. For young offenders to achieve recieve the young offender is not 'achieving justice', they're 'receiving' itjustice, the criminal justice system must take into account the negative circumstances children could be brought up in, which can result in children engaging in criminal behaviour.This sentence is a bit limiting and does not encompass the entirety of why young offenders should be treated differently. Although what you say is definitely true, I personally feel that mentioning "the vulnerability of children and their inability to produce a mens rea" is something that captures the topic much more holistically. Furthermore, this would stop you from clumping everything that you want to talk about at the end, which i'll get into later. In order for this to be effectively executed, the criminal justice system must treat young offenders differently to a large extent.THIS is the type of sentence that markers are looking for. However, mentioning it at this point of the introduction is a bit awkward. I'd recommend cutting this sentence and merging it with your thesis. The way in which the criminal justice system has handled the treatment of young offenders is expressed through the notion of doli incapax, the Children’s Court and the three-tiered system of diversionary processes alternatives to court Okay I don't know how others feel about this, but I reckon you shouldn't dump your main ideas in the one sentence, particularly as your closing sentence. Like I said before, mention the notion of doli incapax in the statement above. Also, save the terminology of the 'three-tiered system of diversionary processes', and use it for your paragraphs. For now, you need to refer to the words of the syllabus, so call it 'alternatives to court'. This also applies for doli incapax, it's a bit petty but the actual heading is 'age of criminal responsibility', so try to include that somewhere as well. This introduction needs an extra sentence which will capture your final judgement. Thus, it is highly accurate that the criminal justice system must "treat young offenders differently"

The notion of doli incapax reveals how the criminal justice system recognises the need for young offenders to be treated differently in order for justice to be achieved. In most cases, unnecessary The community and the law recognise that young offenders have not reached full adulthood, therefore limiting their capacity to recognise right from wrong and highlights the need for young offenders to be treated differently in order for justice to achieved. Try to include legal terminology such as 'mens rea'. It might not seem important to you, but it's one of the criteria which you are being assessed on. Also, try to bring in legislation; doli incapax is regulated under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Despite the application of doli incapax being criticised, especially in high-profile cases relating to heinous crimes committed by children, the importance of doli incapax for young offenders to achieve justice, is highlighted in Thomas Crofts paper ‘Doli incapax: Why children deserve its protection’ in which he states that it is consistent with the principles of international law (Convention on the Rights of the Child) in which Australia is a signatory.Nice inclusion. However, your analysis is really lacking. Whenever you cite a media article, or a case, you need to say how this relates to the question. i.e. this demonstrates that the statement is highly accurate, as... Furthermore, the case of Corey Davis allowed an 11 year old offender to be acquitted, thus proving that the notion of doli incapax applies. This case could be fleshed out so much more if you put it before the 'despite doli incapax being criticised sentence'. Reason being is that it flows much better after your explanation of what doli incapax is. Also, the case received public outcry, hence leading you on to the next sentence. Just a quick note, proper citation of the case would be R v LMW, you can bring in the victim Corey Davis later in the sentence. Again, you haven't analysed your evidence enough - you need to show how it relates to the question. You can't just top and tail your judgement at the beginning and end of your paragraph, with no mention of it in between. Therefore, it is clear that the criminal justice system uses doli incapax to "treat young offenders differently", to ensure that justice is achieved. For further discussion, you could bring in Bronson Blessington, the 14 year old who was sentenced to life imprisonment. This would give you a springboard to discuss the different levels of criminal responsibility. i.e. Children over 14 are not covered by doli incapax, thus breaching article 37 of the CROC, which states that no child should be sentenced to life imprisonment.


The Children’s Court also reveals how the criminal justice system recognises the need for young offenders to be treated differently for justice to be achieved. Established in 1987 Avoid repetition as it disrupts flow under the Children’s Court Act 1987 (NSW), the court has dual roles that deal with criminal matters of children under 18 years and the matters of care and protection of children. The Children’s Court follows procedures laid out under the Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), which acts as a guideline for courts to show regard for children, in order for justice to be achieved. The Children’s Court allows the criminal justice system to achieve justice by allowing children’s proceedings to be conducted in a closed court in order to protect the identity of the child, to ensure differing penalties and sentencing procedures differ from those of ordinary courts. This is evident in the case of a Geelong teenager “guilty of sexually assaulting eight women” being placed on a two-year probation in which the judge I don't know much about this case. However, if it was a JUDGE who determined the sentence, then it would not have occurred in the Children's Court. Keep in mind that it is a magistrate who presides here. ordered the boy to undergo a positive sexuality course as part of his probation. Again, you really need to analyse your cases more. Move this towards the middle of your paragraph so that you can have more of a discussion on it, particularly how it demonstrates your judgement in relation to the question. Ultimately, the criminal justice system uses the Children’s Court in order for young offenders to achieve receive justice. Feedback in this paragraph relates to the previous one - you need to be sustaining an argument throughout, rather than just top and tailing your judgement at the beginning and end.

Lastly, the three-tiered system of diversionary processes alternatives to court also enables the criminal justice system to treat young offenders differently in order for justice to be achieved. This thesis is far too repetitive - try to word it differently Under the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW), children who have committed an offence proceed through a three-tiered system of diversionary processes known as warnings, cautions and youth justice conferences. These programs allow children to have alternative punishments to traditional criminal processes and court penalties, thus allowing the criminal justice system to treat young offenders differently. The use of warnings allow children to have no conditions attached to their offence which is detailed under s15 of the YOA. Police can also issue a more formal warning in the form of a caution, which can only be given if the child admits to the offence or has a legal guardian present. Way, way way too much content dumping. You only need to mention content in your elaboration (where you cited the YOA the first time). After that, the focus should be on introducing media articles,
 cases, statistics which prove your judgement.Furthermore, the youth justice conference allows the offender to take responsibility for their actions and to promote better family understanding of the issues. However, a report entitled “Reoffending among young people cautioned by police or who participated in a youth justice conference” reveals that the introduction of police cautions and youth justice conferences have led to a significant increase in recidivism rates. For example, in 2004-05, approximately 1,200 young offenders completed a YJC or received a caution, which resulted in 58% reoffending within the next five years.Analyse this statistic. What does this show? What's the purpose of including this statistic? Nevertheless, the criminal justice system uses the three-tiered system of diversionary processes in order for young offenders to achieve justice. This lacks a judgement. Is the statement you were provided highly accurate, partially accurate, or inaccurate?You could flesh out this argument with a more sophisticated discussion on warnings. i.e. Police discretion allows young offenders to avoid the court system. Children who undergo the court process are more likely to develop criminal tendencies etc etc..

Therefore, it is clear that the criminal justice system needs to treat young offenders differently in order for justice to be achieved. This has resulted in the notion of doli incapax, which considers the capacity for young offenders to recognise right from wrong, the Children’s Court which allows special provisions for young offenders and the three-tiered system of diversionary processes which allows children to have alternative sentences Lacks a final, conclusive judgement regarding the accuracy of the statement.

First off, a quick foreword that I tend to mark somewhat harsher than that of normal markers. Please don't take anything to heart, I'm a HSC student just like you and could easily have made some errors.

There you go, feedback is in red, suggestions are in blue. 

Overall feedback:
Your topic sentence for every paragraph is the exact same, with only slight changes depending on what specifically you're talking about. While this helps you in terms of simplicity, it becomes way too mundane for the marker. I'll also mention that your thesis is lacking a judgement. The question is literally 'To what extent is this statement true?', so your entire essay is supposed to be whether you think it's true or not. Based off memory I only remember a handful of times where a judgement was explicitly mentioned. Also, your analysis of media articles and cases are far too short. These are supposed to be the backbone of your argument, so it needs to be discussed so much more. You could easily achieve this by cutting down on your content and focusing more on the analysis of cases. Furthermore, you tend to bring in the case in your second last sentence. If you were to introduce it in the middle or near the beginning, you could easily have a more sophisticated discussion of it.

Strong points would include your structure, which I believe is the ideal way to answer this question. The evidence you provide are great (but like I said, you lack an actual analysis of them). Also, you clearly understand your crime content.

I would give this essay a 9/15. Reason being is that it ticks all the boxes in that range. In order to reach the 10-12 range, specific areas to work on are:
-Making a judgement
-Analysis of evidence
-Legal terminology
-Reference the statement! Use quotes to show you're actually including it in your response.

You're a good egg rodero, if I PM'd you one of my responses would you have a look over? Am happy to do the same in return!

[rodero]

Sure thing, send it through and I can have a look

[Korrasami]

‘The criminal justice system must treat young offenders differently in order to achieve
justice.’
To what extent is this statement true?


Original

Spoiler

The criminal justice system has various mechanisms to ensure that young offenders’ rights are at the forefront in order for justice to properly be achieved. For young offenders to achieve justice, the criminal justice system must take into account the negative circumstances children could be brought up in, which can result in children engaging in criminal behaviour. In order for this to be effectively executed, the criminal justice system must treat young offenders differently to a large extent. The way in which the criminal justice system has handled the treatment of young offenders is expressed through the notion of doli incapax, the Children’s Court and the three-tiered system of diversionary processes.

The notion of doli incapax reveals how the criminal justice system recognises the need for young offenders to be treated differently in order for justice to be achieved. In most cases, the community and the law recognise that young offenders have not reached full adulthood, therefore limiting their capacity to recognise right from wrong and highlights the need for young offenders to be treated differently in order for justice to achieved. Despite the application of doli incapax being criticised, especially in high-profile cases relating to heinous crimes committed by children, the importance of doli incapax for young offenders to achieve justice, is highlighted in Thomas Crofts paper ‘Doli incapax: Why children deserve its protection’ in which he states that it is consistent with the principles of international law (Convention on the Rights of the Child) in which Australia is a signatory. Furthermore, the case of Corey Davis allowed an 11 year old offender to be acquitted, thus proving that the notion of doli incapax applies. Therefore, it is clear that the criminal justice system uses doli incapax to treat young offenders differently, to ensure that justice is achieved.

The Children’s Court also reveals how the criminal justice system recognises the need for young offenders to be treated differently for justice to be achieved. Established in 1987 under the Children’s Court Act 1987 (NSW), the court has dual roles that deal with criminal matters of children under 18 years and the matters of care and protection of children. The Children’s Court follows procedures laid out under the Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), which acts as a guideline for courts to show regard for children, in order for justice to be achieved. The Children’s Court allows the criminal justice system to achieve justice by allowing children’s proceedings to be conducted in a closed court in order to protect the identity of the child, to ensure differing penalties and sentencing procedures differ from those of ordinary courts. This is evident in the case of a Geelong teenager “guilty of sexually assaulting eight women” being placed on a two-year probation in which the judge ordered the boy to undergo a positive sexuality course as part of his probation. Ultimately, the criminal justice system uses the Children’s Court in order for young offenders to achieve justice.

Lastly, the three-tiered system of diversionary processes also enables the criminal justice system to treat young offenders differently in order for justice to be achieved. Under the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW), children who have committed an offence proceed through a three-tiered system of diversionary processes known as warnings, cautions and youth justice conferences. These programs allow children to have alternative punishments to traditional criminal processes and court penalties, thus allowing the criminal justice system to treat young offenders differently. The use of warnings allow children to have no conditions attached to their offence which is detailed under s15 of the YOA. Police can also issue a more formal warning in the form of a caution, which can only be given if the child admits to the offence or has a legal guardian present. Furthermore, the youth justice conference allows the offender to take responsibility for their actions and to promote better family understanding of the issues. However, a report entitled “Reoffending among young people cautioned by police or who participated in a youth justice conference” reveals that the introduction of police cautions and youth justice conferences have led to a significant increase in recidivism rates. For example, in 2004-05, approximately 1,200 young offenders completed a YJC or received a caution, which resulted in 58% reoffending within the next five years. Nevertheless, the criminal justice system uses the three-tiered system of diversionary processes in order for young offenders to achieve justice.

Therefore, it is clear that the criminal justice system needs to treat young offenders differently in order for justice to be achieved. This has resulted in the notion of doli incapax, which considers the capacity for young offenders to recognise right from wrong, the Children’s Court which allows special provisions for young offenders and the three-tiered system of diversionary processes which allows children to have alternative sentences.

With feedback

Spoiler

The criminal justice system has various mechanisms to ensure that young offenders’ rights are at the forefront in order for justice to properly be achieved "to achieve justice".Simple thesis, however I feel as though you aren't hitting the question correctly. Firstly, you're thesis must include your judgement to the extent you believe the statement is true. i.e. is the statement accurate to a high, partial or limited extent. Secondly, you need to explicitly refer to the statement provided. I know that throughout your essay you've been mentioning aspects of the quote, but try to have actual quotation marks so that you can indicate to the marker that you're directly answering the question. For young offenders to achieve recieve the young offender is not 'achieving justice', they're 'receiving' itjustice, the criminal justice system must take into account the negative circumstances children could be brought up in, which can result in children engaging in criminal behaviour.This sentence is a bit limiting and does not encompass the entirety of why young offenders should be treated differently. Although what you say is definitely true, I personally feel that mentioning "the vulnerability of children and their inability to produce a mens rea" is something that captures the topic much more holistically. Furthermore, this would stop you from clumping everything that you want to talk about at the end, which i'll get into later. In order for this to be effectively executed, the criminal justice system must treat young offenders differently to a large extent.THIS is the type of sentence that markers are looking for. However, mentioning it at this point of the introduction is a bit awkward. I'd recommend cutting this sentence and merging it with your thesis. The way in which the criminal justice system has handled the treatment of young offenders is expressed through the notion of doli incapax, the Children’s Court and the three-tiered system of diversionary processes alternatives to court Okay I don't know how others feel about this, but I reckon you shouldn't dump your main ideas in the one sentence, particularly as your closing sentence. Like I said before, mention the notion of doli incapax in the statement above. Also, save the terminology of the 'three-tiered system of diversionary processes', and use it for your paragraphs. For now, you need to refer to the words of the syllabus, so call it 'alternatives to court'. This also applies for doli incapax, it's a bit petty but the actual heading is 'age of criminal responsibility', so try to include that somewhere as well. This introduction needs an extra sentence which will capture your final judgement. Thus, it is highly accurate that the criminal justice system must "treat young offenders differently"

The notion of doli incapax reveals how the criminal justice system recognises the need for young offenders to be treated differently in order for justice to be achieved. In most cases, unnecessary The community and the law recognise that young offenders have not reached full adulthood, therefore limiting their capacity to recognise right from wrong and highlights the need for young offenders to be treated differently in order for justice to achieved. Try to include legal terminology such as 'mens rea'. It might not seem important to you, but it's one of the criteria which you are being assessed on. Also, try to bring in legislation; doli incapax is regulated under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Despite the application of doli incapax being criticised, especially in high-profile cases relating to heinous crimes committed by children, the importance of doli incapax for young offenders to achieve justice, is highlighted in Thomas Crofts paper ‘Doli incapax: Why children deserve its protection’ in which he states that it is consistent with the principles of international law (Convention on the Rights of the Child) in which Australia is a signatory.Nice inclusion. However, your analysis is really lacking. Whenever you cite a media article, or a case, you need to say how this relates to the question. i.e. this demonstrates that the statement is highly accurate, as... Furthermore, the case of Corey Davis allowed an 11 year old offender to be acquitted, thus proving that the notion of doli incapax applies. This case could be fleshed out so much more if you put it before the 'despite doli incapax being criticised sentence'. Reason being is that it flows much better after your explanation of what doli incapax is. Also, the case received public outcry, hence leading you on to the next sentence. Just a quick note, proper citation of the case would be R v LMW, you can bring in the victim Corey Davis later in the sentence. Again, you haven't analysed your evidence enough - you need to show how it relates to the question. You can't just top and tail your judgement at the beginning and end of your paragraph, with no mention of it in between. Therefore, it is clear that the criminal justice system uses doli incapax to "treat young offenders differently", to ensure that justice is achieved. For further discussion, you could bring in Bronson Blessington, the 14 year old who was sentenced to life imprisonment. This would give you a springboard to discuss the different levels of criminal responsibility. i.e. Children over 14 are not covered by doli incapax, thus breaching article 37 of the CROC, which states that no child should be sentenced to life imprisonment.


The Children’s Court also reveals how the criminal justice system recognises the need for young offenders to be treated differently for justice to be achieved. Established in 1987 Avoid repetition as it disrupts flow under the Children’s Court Act 1987 (NSW), the court has dual roles that deal with criminal matters of children under 18 years and the matters of care and protection of children. The Children’s Court follows procedures laid out under the Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), which acts as a guideline for courts to show regard for children, in order for justice to be achieved. The Children’s Court allows the criminal justice system to achieve justice by allowing children’s proceedings to be conducted in a closed court in order to protect the identity of the child, to ensure differing penalties and sentencing procedures differ from those of ordinary courts. This is evident in the case of a Geelong teenager “guilty of sexually assaulting eight women” being placed on a two-year probation in which the judge I don't know much about this case. However, if it was a JUDGE who determined the sentence, then it would not have occurred in the Children's Court. Keep in mind that it is a magistrate who presides here. ordered the boy to undergo a positive sexuality course as part of his probation. Again, you really need to analyse your cases more. Move this towards the middle of your paragraph so that you can have more of a discussion on it, particularly how it demonstrates your judgement in relation to the question. Ultimately, the criminal justice system uses the Children’s Court in order for young offenders to achieve receive justice. Feedback in this paragraph relates to the previous one - you need to be sustaining an argument throughout, rather than just top and tailing your judgement at the beginning and end.

Lastly, the three-tiered system of diversionary processes alternatives to court also enables the criminal justice system to treat young offenders differently in order for justice to be achieved. This thesis is far too repetitive - try to word it differently Under the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW), children who have committed an offence proceed through a three-tiered system of diversionary processes known as warnings, cautions and youth justice conferences. These programs allow children to have alternative punishments to traditional criminal processes and court penalties, thus allowing the criminal justice system to treat young offenders differently. The use of warnings allow children to have no conditions attached to their offence which is detailed under s15 of the YOA. Police can also issue a more formal warning in the form of a caution, which can only be given if the child admits to the offence or has a legal guardian present. Way, way way too much content dumping. You only need to mention content in your elaboration (where you cited the YOA the first time). After that, the focus should be on introducing media articles,
 cases, statistics which prove your judgement.Furthermore, the youth justice conference allows the offender to take responsibility for their actions and to promote better family understanding of the issues. However, a report entitled “Reoffending among young people cautioned by police or who participated in a youth justice conference” reveals that the introduction of police cautions and youth justice conferences have led to a significant increase in recidivism rates. For example, in 2004-05, approximately 1,200 young offenders completed a YJC or received a caution, which resulted in 58% reoffending within the next five years.Analyse this statistic. What does this show? What's the purpose of including this statistic? Nevertheless, the criminal justice system uses the three-tiered system of diversionary processes in order for young offenders to achieve justice. This lacks a judgement. Is the statement you were provided highly accurate, partially accurate, or inaccurate?You could flesh out this argument with a more sophisticated discussion on warnings. i.e. Police discretion allows young offenders to avoid the court system. Children who undergo the court process are more likely to develop criminal tendencies etc etc..

Therefore, it is clear that the criminal justice system needs to treat young offenders differently in order for justice to be achieved. This has resulted in the notion of doli incapax, which considers the capacity for young offenders to recognise right from wrong, the Children’s Court which allows special provisions for young offenders and the three-tiered system of diversionary processes which allows children to have alternative sentences Lacks a final, conclusive judgement regarding the accuracy of the statement.

First off, a quick foreword that I tend to mark somewhat harsher than that of normal markers. Please don't take anything to heart, I'm a HSC student just like you and could easily have made some errors.

There you go, feedback is in red, suggestions are in blue. 

Overall feedback:
Your topic sentence for every paragraph is the exact same, with only slight changes depending on what specifically you're talking about. While this helps you in terms of simplicity, it becomes way too mundane for the marker. I'll also mention that your thesis is lacking a judgement. The question is literally 'To what extent is this statement true?', so your entire essay is supposed to be whether you think it's true or not. Based off memory I only remember a handful of times where a judgement was explicitly mentioned. Also, your analysis of media articles and cases are far too short. These are supposed to be the backbone of your argument, so it needs to be discussed so much more. You could easily achieve this by cutting down on your content and focusing more on the analysis of cases. Furthermore, you tend to bring in the case in your second last sentence. If you were to introduce it in the middle or near the beginning, you could easily have a more sophisticated discussion of it.

Strong points would include your structure, which I believe is the ideal way to answer this question. The evidence you provide are great (but like I said, you lack an actual analysis of them). Also, you clearly understand your crime content.

I would give this essay a 9/15. Reason being is that it ticks all the boxes in that range. In order to reach the 10-12 range, specific areas to work on are:
-Making a judgement
-Analysis of evidence
-Legal terminology
-Reference the statement! Use quotes to show you're actually including it in your response.

Honestly, thank you so much! Seems that I have the foundation there, but just need further analysis and judgement! I honestly really appreciate you taking the time to mark it! Good luck in the HSC!

[Korrasami]

Sure thing, send it through and I can have a look

Also, can I redo it again, and send it through to you to see if I'm made any improvements?

[rodero]

Also, can I redo it again, and send it through to you to see if I'm made any improvements?

Of course !

[mohanedibrahim1]

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

[fantasticbeasts3]

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

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

[jamonwindeyer]

Written under exam conditions, please dear god help. I can write a great English essay, but for some reason, not a legal essay. (Also, I typed up the written essay.) Thank you, thank you, thank you. Also, expect a law reform one soon and a family one. Thank you!


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

Hey Mary! Essay is attached with feedback in bold

Spoiler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mary_a]

Hey Mary! Essay is attached with feedback in bold

Spoiler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Jamon,

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

Question, how would you address a law reform question?

Cheers,

Mary

[caitlinlddouglas]

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

[rodero]

Hey would you mind having a look at my essay for crime? i tried to do it under time conditions and i know its not the best, but would you mind outlining how i could cut it down a bit?  Thanks heaps!

Hey !

Looks like you qualify for an essay marked. I wouldn't mind taking a look at it and giving you some feedback. Peer marking won't cost you anything, and it's quite beneficial for both of us . I marked an essay not too long ago so you can check that out too! However, I completely understand if you'd prefer to have it marked by an actual ATARNotes lecturer. Let me know if you're fine with me marking it and I'll have a look ASAP

Cheers

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey would you mind having a look at my essay for crime? i tried to do it under time conditions and i know its not the best, but would you mind outlining how i could cut it down a bit?  Thanks heaps!

Hey! You got feedback on a Module B essay a few weeks ago so you'll need 75 posts to get it marked by Elyse or myself!

Hey !

Looks like you qualify for an essay marked. I wouldn't mind taking a look at it and giving you some feedback. Peer marking won't cost you anything, and it's quite beneficial for both of us . I marked an essay not too long ago so you can check that out too! However, I completely understand if you'd prefer to have it marked by an actual ATARNotes lecturer. Let me know if you're fine with me marking it and I'll have a look ASAP

Cheers

Highly recommend you get rodero to give you some feedback - He is incredible. And was can always mark another version later once you meet count

[caitlinlddouglas]

Hey !

Looks like you qualify for an essay marked. I wouldn't mind taking a look at it and giving you some feedback. Peer marking won't cost you anything, and it's quite beneficial for both of us . I marked an essay not too long ago so you can check that out too! However, I completely understand if you'd prefer to have it marked by an actual ATARNotes lecturer. Let me know if you're fine with me marking it and I'll have a look ASAP

Cheers

Hey thanks that would be really great rodero! I can look at yours too if you wanted
Cheers

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey Jamon,

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

Question, how would you address a law reform question?

Cheers,

Mary

Yep that's exactly right, you just need to be more confident in your arguments - More "Yep, this is definitely true and this is why."

I'd probably address it in terms of reforms to key areas of the CJS - One paragraph on each. So say, a paragraph on the various reforms to LEPRA, a paragraph on reforms to the Bail Act, etc

[rodero]

Hey thanks that would be great rodero! I can look at yours too if you wanted
Cheers

Awesome!

Evaluate the role of law reform in the criminal justice system

Original

Spoiler

Law reform is imperative to the criminal justice system as it enables the law to continually reflect the changing moral and ethical standards in society, whilst responding to perceived failures of existing law and the rise of new technologies. As such law reform can allow for the greater protection of individual rights and enhance the effectiveness of criminal law. Recent reforms which have resulted from media and public pressure, however, have to a large extent resulted in greater protection for the community at the cost of individual rights. Thus, law reform whilst intrinsically linked to achieving an effective criminal justice system has been only partially effective.

Overtime law reform has played an essential role in the pursuit of equality and gaining a balance between police power and individual rights. This has led to a series of critical changes to the criminal investigation process. Specifically, prior to 2013, the rights of victims were not adequately recognised by the criminal investigation process, when criminal biker gangs would suddenly produce an alibi after the prosecution had spent months preparing for a case. This resulted in a substantial loss of resource with no justice realised for victims. Drafted with through a parliamentary committee and the assistance of police, the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013 (NSW) was seen as an effective response to this perceived failure and allowed for improved resource efficiency and better recognition of the victim and community’s rights. Despite the best intentions of the reform, it was widely criticised with Law Society President Justin Down stating that a lack of community consultation had led to a poor law that failed to protect individual rights and had a negative impact on accused persons with limited knowledge of the criminal investigation process. This conveys that to be effective, law reform must consider all stake holders. Furthermore, it demonstrates the challenges of law reform in addressing the critical tension between protecting society’s rights without on infringing on those of the accused. Despite the inadequacies of this law, law reform means that these can be addressed, so as to provide better outcomes for all of society.

Law reform has also played a key role with regard to bail, in an attempt to improve resource efficiency and better balance the rights of individuals and society. The introduction of the bail Act 2013 (NSW) was considered a necessary change as the previous Bail Act 1978 (NSW) had been amended over eighty times. Such extensive reform had led to extremely complex legislation that failed to provide the efficiency required for the criminal justice system to function effectively. The new Bail Act 2013 (NSW), introduced following a comprehensive report by the NSW Law Reform Commission, attempted to provide greater clarity and more consistent application of the law, whilst addressing the increasing rates of remand across NSW. It replaced the extensive list of presumptions for and against bail with an unacceptable risk test. Initially the reform was effective, leading to a decrease in remand levels, however, the case of Mohamoud Hawi in 2014, who received bail on murder charges and a series of other controversial cases conveys the influence of the media in instigating immediate reform, often with insufficient consultation. Despite Justice Harrison stating with regard to hawi’s case that the risks “had been mitigated by imposing strict conditions”, immense media pressure form radio shock jocks and tabloid newspapers led to the introduction of ‘show cause’ measures for serious criminal charges. Despite the changes providing greater protection for society, thy limited the judge’s discretion as well as significantly implicating the ‘presumption of innocence’, a fundamental legal right. The subsequent increase in remand levels conveys that the reform has not been effective in addressing key issues. These amendments indicate the success of law reform within the criminal justice system is dependent on measured considered research and recommendations form relevant legal bodies rather than calls for reform by the media.

Law reform has also been pivotal within the sentencing process of the criminal justice system. Reforms to this area, as governed by the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedures) Act 1999 (NSW) are highly important as they largely determine how offenders will be treated and reintegrated into society. Principally, for sentences to be just for the victim, offender and society, they must enable judicial discretion to be exercised. The case of R v Loveridge (2013) where Loveridge was imprisoned and charged with manslaughter led to major reform to sentencing. This was driven by media outrage at his original sentence of five years and 2 months. Minimum mandatory sentences for causing death with a single strike were introduced less than 3 months later, also making it mandatory for intoxication to be an aggravating factor. The reform was considered effective as it improves justice for the victim and acts as a general deterrent. Despite this, the Law Council was critical of the amendment, stating that mandatory imprisonment will lead to “the individual engaging in more serious criminal acts down the track.” Furthermore, the reforms remove judicial discretion and further impact the rights of the offender, which could result in less responsive and suitable sentencing and punishment from being achieved. Consequently law reform has to an extent been effective within this area of the criminal justice system.

An evaluation of the impact of law reform into the above areas of the criminal justice system conveys that reform is the most effective mechanism in addressing key issues that arise from criminal law. These reforms, whilst failing to provide greater protections for offenders and the accused have responded to society’s calls for harsher legislation, so as to recognise the rights of the victim and the community. In this respect, law reform has successfully reflected society’s changing ethical and moral standards. It must be noted, however, that Law reform is fundamental to the criminal justice system, so that more effective, just outcomes for the victim, offender and society may eventually be realised.

With feedback

Spoiler

Law reform is imperative to the criminal justice system as it enables the law to continually reflect the changing moral and ethical standards in of society, whilst responding to perceived failures of existing law and the rise of new technologies and perceived failures of existing law. Solid thesis; good integration of the theme/challenge as well. I swapped the second half of the sentence to help with expression and flow As such law reform can allow for the greater protection of individual rights and enhance the effectiveness of criminal law. Recent reforms which have resulted from media and public pressure, however, have to a large extent resulted in greater protection for the community at the cost of individual rights. In light of the past two sentences, it looks as though what you're saying is that law reform can protect individual rights, but at times it can prioritise the community instead? A statement like that could be communicated much more succinctly through the inclusion of the whole 'balancing the rights of victims, offenders and society' phrase. Another note would be that you haven't mentioned what you're talking about. While what you say about law reform has been great, you're completely missing the second half of the question; that is, 'the criminal justice system'. This means that if you want to answer all aspects of the question in your introduction, then you need to bring up your key points such as bail, rights of suspects, and statutory guidelines The significance of law reform in addressing the diverse nature of criminal law is evident through amendments to the rights of suspects, bail and statutory guidelines That's just an example off the top of my head and is no means perfect, but the idea is that you bring in the topic of your paragraphs in the introduction, so that the marker knows from the get-go what it is you'll be writing about Thus, law reform whilst intrinsically linked to achieving an effective criminal justice system has been only partially effective.You're starting to get sidetracked here. The question is 'evaluate the ROLE of law reform',
 not 'evaluate the EFFECTIVENESS of law reform'. So your essay shouldn't be focused on whether or not it's been effective (though you can mention it a few times), instead it should say something along the lines of.. Thus, law reform is essential for the achievement of justice, so plays a highly significant role in the criminal justice systeml

Overtime Over time, law reform has played an essential role in the pursuit of equality and gaining a balance between police power and individual rights in relation to the rights of suspects.I would remove the 'police powers and individual rights' part and swap it in for 'rights of suspects'. Reason being is that when I first read this paragraph I thought that you were going to be talking about law reform regarding police powers, which is a different dot point - once I finished reading I realised it was on the rights of suspects instead. This has led to a series of critical changes to the criminal investigation process. This is a bit of unnecessary fluff; it's contributing to your word count and time, but it isn't really adding anything to your essay. You're more than welcome to delete this sentence completely, just make sure you get rid of the 'specifically' in your next sentence Specifically, prior to 2013, the rights of victims were not adequately recognised by in the criminal investigation process, when criminal biker gangs would suddenly produce an alibi after the prosecution had spent months preparing for a case. This resulted in a substantial loss of resource with no justice realised for victims. Drafted with through a parliamentary committee and the assistance of police, I might seem a bit harsh but like I said before, this extra fluff isn't grabbing you any extra marks. In reality, if you got rid of all of the unnecessary words you could easily fit an extra bit of evidence to strengthen your argument in relation to the question The Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013 (NSW) was seen as an effective response to this perceived failure and allowed for improved resource efficiency and better recognition of the victim and community’s rights.The analysis here is all well and good, though it could benefit with a tiny description about what this amendment actually did i.e The Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013 (NSW) allowed the jury to draw a "guilty inference" when the accused brings new evidence that was not said during questioning. This demonstrates that law reform plays a highly significant role in the criminal justice system, as it is integral for the achievement of resource efficiency and facilitates a better recognition of the rights of the victim and society Despite the best intentions of the reform, it was widely criticised with Law Society President Justin Down stating that a lack of community consultation had led to a poor law that failed to protect individual rights and deleted to avoid repetition. Individual rights and the rights of the accused are virtually the same thing in this context had a negative impact on accused persons with limited knowledge of the criminal investigation process. This conveys that to be effective, law reform must consider all stake holders members of society Personally I'm a bit iffy on the use of the word 'stakeholders' in a legal studies context. It just seems more of a business term to me. Even then, the sentence sounds a bit clunky when said aloud. Furthermore, it demonstrates the challenges of law reform in addressing the critical tension between protecting society’s rights without on infringing on those of the accused. Despite the inadequacies of this law, law reform means that these can be addressed, so as to provide better outcomes for all of society. This sentence is a bit confusing. It just seems like a sudden jump from 'allowing for resource efficiency' to calling it 'inadequate'.
 In any case, this linking sentence isn't going back to the actual question. You need to finish this paragraph up with your judgement. i.e. Does law reform play a highly significant role, an insignificant role, etc.

Law reform has also played a key role with regard to bail, in an attempt to improve resource efficiency and better balance the rights of individuals and society.This is a good thesis statement. Try to reciprocate it throughout your essay The introduction of the bBail Amendment Act 2013 (NSW) was considered a necessary change as the previous Bail Act 1978 (NSW) had been amended over eighty times to no success I don't see the correlation between being amended several times and needing to be amended again? For expression sake, I've added a few extra words. Such extensive reform had led to extremely complex legislation that failed to provide the efficiency required for the criminal justice system to function effectively. The new Bail Act 2013 (NSW), introduced following a comprehensive report by the NSW Law Reform Commission, attempted to provide greater clarity and more consistent application of the law, whilst addressing the increasing rates of remand across NSW. It replaced the extensive list of presumptions for and against bail with an unacceptable risk test.This sentence is the only real bit of explanation that you need. If you got rid of the previous sentences, you could delve into a discussion of Man Monis and how he commit the Lindt Cafe Siege while on bail. Initially the reform was effective, leading to a decrease in remand levels, however, the case of Mohamoud Hawi in 2014, who received bail on murder charges and a series of other controversial cases conveys the influence of the media in instigating immediate reform, often with insufficient consultation. Despite Justice Harrison stating with regard to hawi’s case that the risks “had been mitigated by imposing strict conditions”, immense media pressure form radio shock jocks and tabloid newspapers led to the introduction of ‘show cause’ measures for serious criminal charges. Your analysis needs to include your judgement in relation to the question Despite the changes providing greater protection for society, thy limited the judge’s discretion as well as significantly implicating the ‘presumption of innocence’, a fundamental legal right. The subsequent increase in remand levels conveys that the reform has not been effective in addressing key issues. These amendments indicate the success of law reform within the criminal justice system is dependent on measured considered research and recommendations form relevant legal bodies rather than calls for reform by the media.Again, this linking statement is cluttered with a lot of ideas, though it still fails to answer the question. i.e. These amendments highlight that law reform has a profound impact on the criminal justice system. What you had in the topic sentence was a good thesis

Law reform has also been pivotal within the sentencing process of the criminal justice system. Reforms to this area, as governed by the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedures) Act 1999 (NSW) are highly important as they largely determine how offenders will be treated and reintegrated into society. Principally, for sentences to be just for the victim, offender and society, they must enable judicial discretion to be exercised. The case of R v Loveridge (2013) where Loveridge was imprisoned and charged with manslaughter led to major reform to sentencing. This was driven by media outrage at his original sentence of five years and 2 months. Minimum mandatory sentences for causing death with a single strike were introduced less than 3 months later, also making it mandatory for intoxication to be an aggravating factor. Cite the amendment - the Crimes (Assault and Intoxication) Act. In a law reform question it is CRUCIAL that you actually cite the amendmentThe reform was considered effective as it improves justice for the victim and acts as a general deterrent.Like I said before, you've been asked for how significant of a ROLE law reform plays in the CJS, not how effective it is Despite this, the Law Council was critical of the amendment, stating that mandatory imprisonment will lead to “the individual engaging in more serious criminal acts down the track.” Furthermore, the reforms remove judicial discretion and further impact the rights of the offender, which could result in less responsive and suitable sentencing and punishment from being achieved. Consequently law reform has to an extent been effective within this area of the criminal justice system.Previous feedback relates to here as well

An evaluation of the impact of law reform into the above areas of the criminal justice system conveys that reform is the most effective mechanism in addressing key issues that arise from criminal law. These reforms, whilst failing to provide greater protections for offenders and the accused have responded to society’s calls for harsher legislation, so as to recognise the rights of the victim and the community. In this respect, law reform has successfully reflected society’s changing ethical and moral standards. It must be noted, however, that Law reform is fundamental to the criminal justice system, so that more effective, just outcomes for the victim, offender and society may eventually be realised.

Conclusively, law reform has a highly significant role in the criminal justice system. These amendments attempt to adapt to the dynamic nature of society's ethical standards through changes to legislation pertaining to the rights of suspects. Likewise, the recent bail amendments demonstrate to a large extent, the ramifications that ineffective reforms have on the wider populace. Finally, law reform regarding statutory guidelines is highly significant, as the proposed changes severely restrict judicial discretion. Thus, it is clear that law reform has a significant role in the criminal justice system

First off, a quick foreword that I tend to mark somewhat harsher than that of normal markers. Please don't take anything to heart, I'm a HSC student just like you and could easily have made some errors.

Without any further ado, comments are in red, suggestions are in blue

General feedback:
You definitely raise some valid points regarding law reform and how it may affect the community. You've also been able to weave in some additional themes and challenges, which is great. However, there are major issues regarding the fact that you're getting sidetracked in your analysis and judgement. The question is asking for a judgement on the ROLE of law reform, not the EFFECTIVENESS of it. That being said, there have only been TWO instances throughout the entire essay where you explicitly used the word 'role', which means your ability to explicitly answer the question is severely limited.

Another note would be the fact that there is too much fluff. What I mean by fluff is words that make the essay look 'fuller' than it actually is. These fluff statements don't reward you with any extra marks, since the marker isn't getting anything out of them. You tend to have a lot of fluff in your elaboration. By culling these statements, you would then be able to introduce more cases, more media, more legislation etc. to prove your point.

My last point of feedback would be that you are introducing your law reform too late into the paragraph. The question is purely centered around the role of law reform, so the amendment must be cited much, much earlier. In your final paragraph for instance, it was only until halfway through your paragraph that the amendment was referenced

With all of these pointers, I do need to commend you on your strengths. Undeniably, you know your crime content, which will work wonders for you as Crime is such a big topic. Also, you have a fairly strong grasp on legal terminology, and you're able to weave them properly throughout the essay.

Overall, I'd give this essay a 10/15 - you have the 'sound knowledge' to get into that 10-12 range, but unfortunately your judgement was in relation to the EFFECTIVENESS of law reform, not the ROLE of law reform. As well as this, too much fluff in your paragraphs detracted from the amount of evidence and analysis that could be used.