Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 28, 2024, 07:08:57 pm

Author Topic: Legal Studies: Assessment Feedback  (Read 3002 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LochNess Monster

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • I speak Chinglish!
  • Respect: +12
Legal Studies: Assessment Feedback
« on: January 19, 2018, 08:44:01 am »
+1
Dear ATAR Notes,

I need help!!!

I did really badly on my first assignment in Term 1 and felt shocked when I got my mark back because I did well in Preliminary.
My mark for Part 1 was 8/10.
My mark for Part 2 was 8/15.

Together, I got overall 16/25 for my first assesment task (well...it really wasn't what I was hoping for...)

I was crushed as I was aiming for Band 6 in Legal Studies throughout Year 11 and especially in Year 12.

Can you tell me what went wrong and how I can climb (cough *crawl) back up there?

From,
Sadly Overdue
ATAR: 89.55
⸜( ˙ ˘ ˙)/ ・゚☆✧ Sometimes wrong numbers are the right numbers ~ Cecelia Ahern

☽ “But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.” - Yeats

rodero

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
  • Professional quote and statistic generator
  • Respect: +81
Re: Legal Studies: Assessment Feedback
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2018, 10:24:00 am »
+5
Dear ATAR Notes,

I need help!!!

I did really badly on my first assignment in Term 1 and felt shocked when I got my mark back because I did well in Preliminary.
My mark for Part 1 was 8/10.
My mark for Part 2 was 8/15.

Together, I got overall 16/25 for my first assesment task (well...it really wasn't what I was hoping for...)

I was crushed as I was aiming for Band 6 in Legal Studies throughout Year 11 and especially in Year 12.

Can you tell me what went wrong and how I can climb (cough *crawl) back up there?

From,
Sadly Overdue


Hey!

Don't be too worried about your first assessment. There's still plenty of opportunities to come back in the next ones.

Part 1

“The adversary system always achieves just and fair outcomes.” Discuss this statement with reference to the various elements of the adversary system.

Introduction
The adversary system in the criminal trial process tries to ensure just outcomes are always achieved. The law attempts to uphold equity through the rule of law. However, this is difficult due to public pressures and influence by the media. Issues of the adversary system involve pleas or charge negotiation and the role of juries to determine whether a case shall receive just outcomes. In the case of R v Gittany (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 49 it highlights how the importance of pleas, charge negotiation and the role of the jury is needed to adequately convict the offender.  I'm going to be harsh and say that this introduction needs work. Firstly, you need to mention the statement that you've been provided so that you actually answer the question. Secondly, the question is asking you to 'discuss', which means show sides for and against. When you combine the two, a proper way to introduce would be along the lines of: "Although the adversarial system "strives to achieve justice", several shortcomings throughout the criminal trial process render it only a partially effective measure in criminal law. This is largely due to community pressure and the difficulty in balancing the rights of the victim, offender and society. Specifically, issues in charge negotiation and juries have lead to injustices, despite their intentions to create an equal and resource efficient system. Thus, although the adversarial system strives to "achieve just and fair outcomes", they are only somewhat effective in doing so.


Pleas and charge negotiation
My tip that you should be quoting the statement directly is something that applies to all of your opening sentences, including your body paragraphs.
Pleas and charge negotiation in the adversary system revolve round mens rea to reduce culpability of the offender or prevent the risk of an unjust conviction. In R v Gittany, Simon Gittany pleaded not guilty when detained and there were no charge negotiations involved. In the ‘Sydney Criminal Lawyers’ media report, his lawyers denied his involvement in throwing his fiancée, Ms. Harnum, to her death from the balcony in inner Sydney, claiming she could of fell by herself. However, Joshua Rathmell witnessed Gittany ‘unload a large object…over the balcony’ in situ aligning with the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and further perpetuated by the investigation team for Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW). The judge declared actus rea and the not-guilty pleading was rejected when Mr. Gittany received the suitable 26 years in jail with non-parole period of 18 years. The relevant form of justice was provided for the victim, satisfied by the judge. However, it is only partially effective as no preventative measure for future victims is ensured. This is evident in R v Koch (2009), when premeditated murder was downgraded to grievous bodily harm due to charge negotiation. The tension to balance just convictions with the community standards are due to variegated ethics held by individuals. There is far too much recounting of the cases here.
 The case is supposed to reinforce your argument, they shouldn't make up your entire argument. You still need to be answering this essential question; "Do you think the adversarial system always achieves just outcomes". Also, I'm not quite seeing how charge negotiation is relevant here? Charge negotiation is when a suspect pleads guilty in return for a lesser charge, but in this case he pleads not-guilty. Consider using R v Loveridge for a good charge negotiation case


The role of juries
The role of juries in the adversary system aim to ensure justice and are vital to reach the concluding verdict in every case, to reflect societal values. In R v Gittany, there was no jury involved as this case had public interests and infiltration of media perceptions. This was such that Simon Gittany chose to have a judge-only trial due to uncertainties of bias in the jury. Under s132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) it was corrected by this case to state that, “the court may make a trial by judge order if it considers it is in the interests of justice to do so.” In this, justice was partially upheld through the adversary system. Objective community standards were withdrawn but the rule of law was enforced through the judicial decision to let Simon Gittany be presided by a judge-only court. His individual rights were protected and therefore, reflected unto the legal ethics of fairness for citizens. While the jury represents members of the community and the current values in society, an impartial judge does still take into account the needs of society, clearly evident in the ABC News that “Justice McCallum said that jailing Gittany for life would be excessive but…he had no prospects for rehabilitation.” The lack of the jury’s role in this case then concurs with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of which innocence is claimed before proven guilty. In a different light, the case of R v Rogerson & R v McNamara (2016) dismissed jurors in two days due to potential prejudice. It demonstrates the lack of time and resource inefficiency since it costs $92 million a year to fund juries (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). Despite the usefulness of the role of juries in the adversarial system, it always comes at a cost to taxpaying citizens. Same feedback for this paragraph. Use the statement provided, create a solid judgement in relation to the question, use cases to reinforce a judgement - don't recount the case. Just to substantiate your final point about taxpayers, look into R v Xie, which was the longest murder trial in NSW history.

Conclusion
If justice is not achieved through pleas, charge negotiation and the role of juries in the adversarial system, it is conflicting with the needs of society. The adversarial system must constantly implement law reforms to reduce partiality and achieve a fair and just outcome for those involved.

OVERALL: I feel like you are giving me STATEMENTS rather than JUDGEMENTS. Essentially, you're saying "if justice is not achieved ....
 it will conflict with the needs of society". This is a good point but it doesn't contribute much to the actual question you need to answer. What you're supposed to answer is "Do you think the adversarial system always achieves justice?". To answer that, rejig your STATEMENT so that it includes a judgement, like this: "Since justice has not been achieved through charge negotiation and juries, it is clear that the adversarial system is only partially effective in "achieving just and fair outcomes"

Sorry if I come off too harsh, I just really want to get down some constructive criticism. I don't have time to get through Part 2, but I'll have that done when I can. Maybe somebody else might do it before me  ;D. Anyway, considering it's your first assessment for Year 12 Legal I'd say you're on track. You just need to get down those tips and you'll be in the Band 6 range in no time
.

HSC 2017:
English (Advanced): 91    Legal Studies: 92    Modern History: 91    Studies of Religion 2: 90    Business Studies: 92

ATAR: 96.75

Need tutoring? Click here!

chelseam

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 185
  • Respect: +45
Re: Legal Studies: Assessment Feedback
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2018, 01:24:52 am »
+4
Dear ATAR Notes,

I need help!!!

I did really badly on my first assignment in Term 1 and felt shocked when I got my mark back because I did well in Preliminary.
My mark for Part 1 was 8/10.
My mark for Part 2 was 8/15.

Together, I got overall 16/25 for my first assesment task (well...it really wasn't what I was hoping for...)

I was crushed as I was aiming for Band 6 in Legal Studies throughout Year 11 and especially in Year 12.

Can you tell me what went wrong and how I can climb (cough *crawl) back up there?

From,
Sadly Overdue
Hey there! I agree with what rodero's said here - you don't need to be too worried about your first assessment, there is SO much time for you to improve, and this assessment will probably have little impact on your end results anyway :)

Spoiler
Intro
Sentencing decisions are affected by both taking in consideration towards aggravating and mitigating circumstances. These factors of sentencing decisions intend to offer fair retribution to conciliate for the needs of the victim, individual rights of the offender and society’s desire for justice. In light of recent affairs, in the case of R v Gittany (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 49 it is proven that careful consideration must be given to balance the rights of every party. If you are arguing that this has been proven, then you should also discuss why you believe so. Prominent factors like such as mandatory sentencing can tip the end of the scales in favour for one party instead of the other. I think that it would be better to try to use more formal language, and avoid using colloquial terms and idioms such as ‘like’ and ‘tip the end of the scales in favour for one party instead of the other’. Ultimately, the sentencing decision is objective in every case as it cannot account for being completely free of impartiality.
A solid intro here, but if a question begins with ‘assess the extent’ then I think you should try to clearly address this in the intro – you could consider how the ‘factors’ you’re discussing may be:
-   effective, but its effectiveness is limited by …
-   mostly ineffective, but has had small successes in …
You could evaluate the ‘effectiveness’ of these ‘factors’ by referring to the criteria outlined in the syllabus, and whatever criteria you can identify in the question (here, it would be how effectively they balance the rights of the three parties).
(I think it’s more interesting for a marker if you showcase both sides of an argument rather than completely agreeing with one view – and it’s a way to demonstrate your diverse knowledge).
A general way you could structure an introduction could be mentioning which ‘factors’ you’ll be discussing in your essay at the beginning of your intro, and then elaborating these ideas and their effectiveness a bit further in the rest of your intro.


Victim
Fairness, respect and dignity is given to the victim, which is essential in obtaining justice for the death of the victim involved as it is outlined in the Crime Victims' Rights Act (2004) government legislation. You can argue that these are important to achieve justice for the victim, but do you think that these are present in every case in the justice system?
In R v Gittany I would mention the year and court that the decision was made in here, like you did earlier, Judge Lucy McCallum sentenced Simon Gittany to 26 years in jail with a non-parole period of 18 years for throwing his fiancée, Lisa Harnum, to her death from the balcony. In ensuring a just penalty was put unto Gittany, this sentencing decision accounted for the needs and rights of the victim and her family. During victim liaison, the police officer contacted Lisa’s family in a passable and timely manner, concentrating on recognising the needs of her family, which is demonstrating the responsiveness in the criminal investigation process of the legal system. Good use of criteria here! The police found proof of her murder (Evidence Act 1995 NSW) I’m not sure why you mentioned this legislation here – did you mean that their investigation was conducted under the guidelines set in this law? I would elaborate further using more evidence, it seems like a claim rather than fact right now.  However, there was a continuation of trauma in court and by incessant media for the family in what was meant to be a cathartic experience. It’s important to stay objective when you’re writing, and this sounds too much like a personal opinion. The mother of the victim, Joan Harnum, comments to media reporters that “There [are] no winners in this thing. Two families’ lives have been changed forever. We lost our daughter. His family has gone through a lot.” I think this is a good piece of evidence! The victim can never feel properly compensated as two lives once intertwined were both destroyed by one murder. Again, I think that this sounds too much like a personal opinion, and I’m not seeing how this links to answering the question. In the Sydney Morning Herald in 2013, Joan Harnum further expresses that her daughter “…wanted to leave and he stopped her. That’s all he had to do, is let her go.” The evidence that you’ve used here is a comment about the victim’s experience, but not about how the factors of sentencing decisions in the legal system impact the victim’s rights and access to justice. The case had accessibility for the victimised and the correct process of validation in victim impact statements. I haven’t really seen anything in your argument about accessibility for victims, or any earlier mentions about victim impact statements.
Overall, I think that this paragraph strayed from the question a little bit. You’ve included some potentially strong evidence, though, and if you can link these to the criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the legal factors you’ve chosen, your arguments can become stronger :).
Offender
The rights of the offender in sentencing decisions is to have an impartial judicial discretion to ensure correct fair judgement. It would be useful to mention any legislation that mentions this. In R v Gittany, his bail was revoked and remained in custody by the Corrective Services under the Bail Act (2013). However, the rights of the offender were met by the decree of a judge-alone trial, as the jury was influenced by the media. If you want to include this, I would find evidence to support this – again, it sounds like a personal opinion rather than fact right now (even if it is true)! For Simon Gittany, the case stated it was an aggravating factor that he deliberately lifted Lisa Harnum over the balcony and that this defendant was “controlling, abusive and dominating.” The mitigating factor for Gittany was that the dysfunctional relationship was claimed by his lawyer to have been, “characterised by affection and love.” The judge Lucy McCallum did take these factors into her sentencing decision, commenting on 27 November 2013 that “life imprisonment would be excessive.” I like the evidence that you’ve used here! This 26-year imprisonment with non-parole period of 18 years is effective in justice for the offender as it noted his “state of uncontrolled rage” moments before his fiancée’s death and balanced this with his protection of individual rights. I would mention evidence here to support why you believe that this decision protects his rights. Gittany then also had the offender’s rights to appeal this sentencing decision. He appealed on the grounds that the Crown Witness was unreliable due to the unconscious reconstruction of memory and the verdict was unreasonable. Justice Basten overturned the appeal as he found no errors in the witness nor erring from the law by the previous judge. Therefore, Simon Gittany’s offender rights were in place upheld and he was still to be convicted of his liabilities. Do you have any evidence to show that his rights were upheld? Contrastingly, the case of R v Silva (2015) highlights the rights of the offender presiding over the victim, effectively reducing the sentencing decision of manslaughter to 18 months of imprisonment. Justice Clifton Hoeben comments, “The offender is unlikely to reoffend and has good prospects of rehabilitation.” In R v Silva, the rights of the offender were placed over that of the victim’s and this creates an inconsistency of sentencing decisions for future victims who need justice. Again, I would mention any evidence here that supports your claim – it seems like a personal opinion right now. This uncertainty further infiltrates the wider community. This sounds like a personal opinion, and also isn’t really relevant to the question. Judicial discretion was implemented; therefore, the offender’s rights were upheld (NSW Court, 2016). Even if you believe that the offender’s rights were upheld, it would also be useful to comment on the rights of the other parties (the victim and society) to link back to the question. I’m also not sure why you mentioned NSW Court, 2016?
Society
Societal needs must be met in order for future law reform to reflect the values of the community. In R v Gittany, the maximum sentence for murder is life imprisonment, with the mandatory requirement of 20 years for inflicting grievous bodily harm as outlined in the Crimes Act (1900) NSW. If there is an intention by the accused onto the victim, the community needs to know individual rights will be protected for both and justice is achieved. This sentence is a bit hard to follow. The judge upheld this throughout the case to reflect societal values and future law by sentencing Simon Gittany to 25 years. In 2016, in the Supreme Court, there were 37 convicted defendants for murder with 100% receiving custodial sentencing, reflecting that the court hierarchy protects society’s needs by imprisoning serious offenders (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016). Good! In light of mandatory sentencing, the judge in R v Gittany effectively had judicial discretion. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Judges use their discretion to make decisions in sentencing, but mandatory sentencing can limit their discretion (and at times, justice for particular parties). In other cases due to the judge’s decisions, the community changes their societal values and believes “The victim is faulted for having become victimised. By blaming victims, others seem to believe that they, themselves are less vulnerable to crime.” A good piece of evidence here, but I don’t think you should claim this about the community. Perhaps you could use the evidence to comment on how sentencing decisions may influence public opinions towards victims, which may impact their experience in the justice system, but I don’t think this would work well with the question. (Presidents Task Force: 1986:9). The United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985) acknowledges this issue imbued in society, claiming in the treaty that “A person may be considered a victim, under this Declaration, regardless of whether the perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted.” Nice mention of an international document!

Conclusion
There is a conflict of interest between balancing retribution for the victim and the offender’s rights, under the overarching code of society’s needs. It is evident these were largely balanced in R v Gittany (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 49. Yet in many sentencing decisions this is not always the case. Therefore, sentencing decisions are vital in the legal court to be impartial and uphold justice. It is proven that sentencing decisions reflect the ethics of law to protect individual rights throughout the court process. I would also mention something that directly links to or addresses the question.

For a question that asks you to consider the balance between the rights of the victim, offender and society, it may be more effective to structure your essay differently. Instead of focusing on one party in each paragraph, you could try to focus on a different factor that affects sentencing decisions in each one, and explore how this impacts all 3 parties in the same paragraph.
I think that you’re giving your personal view more than arguments supported by evidence. You also need to ensure that any evidence you mention clearly links to your argument and is actually relevant to the question – at times, I think that you’ve strayed a little from the question. You’ve found and used good for the Gittany case, but in the future, I think it would be more effective to base your arguments over more than just one case – you can’t really form an opinion on the effectiveness of the legal system from just one example. Statistics, media responses and other cases would be helpful here. I’m sorry if any of this comes across as harsh! Like rodero said, I think you’re on track considering that this is only your first assessment :D
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 01:26:54 am by chelseam »
HSC 2017: Chemistry / English Advanced / English Extension 1 / Legal Studies (5th in NSW) / Math Extension 1 / Math Extension 2

LochNess Monster

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • I speak Chinglish!
  • Respect: +12
Re: Legal Studies: Assessment Feedback
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2018, 07:22:15 pm »
+1
Much thanks!

The criticisms were super helpful and I don't think it was harsh at all.  :D

will practise improving.
ATAR: 89.55
⸜( ˙ ˘ ˙)/ ・゚☆✧ Sometimes wrong numbers are the right numbers ~ Cecelia Ahern

☽ “But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.” - Yeats

jamonwindeyer

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 10150
  • The lurker from the north.
  • Respect: +3108
Re: Legal Studies: Assessment Feedback
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2018, 08:59:24 pm »
0
Love your work Chelseam and Rodero - Am going to split this feedback into the Marking section ;D

brianna.skye

  • Fresh Poster
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
Re: Legal Studies: Assessment Feedback
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2018, 12:19:29 pm »
0
Hey!

Just wondering if you guys could give me some tips on my legal essay, be harsh or whatever I really want to get better
Thanks!

NowYouTseMe

  • MOTM: JUL 18
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • Respect: +16
Re: Legal Studies: Assessment Feedback
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2018, 08:55:50 pm »
0
Ok, so I've added my criticism below in the spoiler tabs. It's not necessarily a bad essay, but it could use a lot of improvement, as well as more substance.

Introduction
Spoiler
I personally prefer to make my argument intent/clear judgement at the end of the introduction and actually start with a clear thesis on why the subject matter (sentencing and punishment) requires the law to change/be a certain way (in this question, it's balancing the rights of victims, offenders and society). It also makes the introduction a lot more substantial, rather than ending in 2 sentences with contemporary issues. How I would write this intro would be The tension between victims, offenders and society exacerbates a need for the legal system to strike a balance of rights in the process of sentencing and punishment. The extent to which the law does so is explored through the contemporary issues of mandatory sentencing, suspended sentences, and the sexual offenders registry. Despite some success, these measures are only partially effective in balancing the rights of victims, offenders and society regarding sentencing and punishment.

Body Paragraph 1: Sexual Offenders Registry
Spoiler
Your topic sentence involves the purposes of punishment through retribution, which is really good, however, it's not too clear what the paragraph is about from the topic sentence. It'd probably be a good idea to make this sentence more concise, associate victims with protection and society with retribution and perhaps mention registration of sexual offenders. You might want a case example or statistic of sexual registration working effectively in order to balance out the paragraph. I really like the counter-argument line though. Shorten the description of the Dennis Ferguson case though, it's way too long. Also, you need to relate the case back to the (counter)argument after introducing it, otherwise the flow of the paragraph is a bit disjointed.

Body Paragraph 2: Mandatory Sentencing
Spoiler
The topic sentence to this paragraph is way too vague.
You need to specify why the tension between victims, offenders and society is specifically important to mandatory sentencing,
 as well as the sentencing process generally. Your previous topic sentence did this pretty well. Your introduction of R v Jacobs is way too long as well though. I would introduce it by saying The case of R v Jacobs, in which a police officer was murdered whilst in pursuit of a disqualified driver, influenced the passing of the Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Act 2011. This legislation provides for... . In making the counter-argument, imo it should be longer to balance out the initial argument. Perhaps only use the first half of the quote and explain why it demonstrates the ineffectiveness of mandatory sentencing.

Body Paragraph 3: Suspended Sentencing
Spoiler
Again with the topic sentence lacking complexity here;
 what about suspended sentencing makes it a viable measure to use when considering balancing the rights of victims, society and the offender? Put R v Bui before the counterargument otherwise the flow of the paragraph isn't as strong. When quoting "serious failure", quote the person or news article, otherwise the statement has no weight behind it. Perhaps also have a statistic for recidivism rates after suspended sentencing after the counterargument to demonstrate its ineffectiveness. Also, maintain your 'partial effectiveness' stance, rather than saying substantially effective.

Conclusion
Spoiler
imo for conclusions, you want to end with a strong judgement of effectiveness to leave a lasting impact on the reader. This does not do this. With conclusions, I structure them with first a reiteration of the thesis, then a summarisation of arguments, then a concluding judgement of the extent to which the essay subject is effective.

note: just another y12 legal studies student so take this with a grain of salt   ;D
HSC 2016
Information Processes and Technology: 90

HSC 2018
Advanced English: 95 | Extension 1 English: 47 | Extension 2 English: 42 | Legal Studies: 95 | Modern History: 94 | French Continuers: 84 | Mathematics Advanced: 89

LAT 2018: 88 (90th Percentile)

ATAR: 98.05

LochNess Monster

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • I speak Chinglish!
  • Respect: +12
Re: Legal Studies: Assessment Feedback
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2018, 10:02:22 pm »
0
I got some salt ready.  Enough grains to last me the entire year.
ATAR: 89.55
⸜( ˙ ˘ ˙)/ ・゚☆✧ Sometimes wrong numbers are the right numbers ~ Cecelia Ahern

☽ “But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.” - Yeats