HSC Legal Studies Question Thread

[parthie]

Hey! So with the aggravating factors stuff, basically the idea is this. Recognition of an aggravating factor (whatever it may be) is going to make the punishment given relatively more severe. So, there exists this balance between adequately punishing the offender (to recognise the victim and society), while still making it fair on the offender. Recognition of aggravating factors represents an acknowledgement of victim/society, which could infringe on the rights of the offender to a fair punishment. So, it isn't a direct thing, it more represents a sway towards greater acknowledgement of the victim/society. Mitigating factors are the opposite - Recognising offender rights while not recognising rights of society. Together, they (hopefully) achieve a balance

Hmm, taking prior convictions into account during sentencing doesn't really recognise the rights of the victims, I'd say more society? You could stretch it. Basically it's acknowledging the fact that the offender has committed crimes before, and thus making a more retributive (more severe) punishment to more adequately achieve justice. Kind of like a student who keeps lashing out at a teacher eventually getting suspended, because it is unfair for them to just continually get detentions and it never escalates (or something)

Hope that helps!

Thanks so much again!!!!

One last thing I promise haha

for this question: “The adversary system always achieves just and fair outcomes” Discuss this statement with reference to the various elements of the adversary system (I also have to include he Rogerson - McNamara case in it)

Is this introduction and conclusion enough?? I am just worried that I haven't made a clear judgement

intro: The adversary system has several elements which achieve just and fair outcomes to a certain extent. Elements of the adversary system include the court listening to the arguments of opposing sides, the judge being impartial, and the use of a jury. Each of these elements can achieve just and fair outcomes, as shown in the R v Rogerson R v Mcnamara (2016) cases, however they can also they can also be unsuccessful.

conc: The elements of the adversary system used in the Roger Rogerson and Glen McNamara case provided a just and fair outcome as both men were sentenced to life imprisonment. The adversary system has many elements including impartial judges, the court listens to the arguments of each side and the use juries which attempt to achieve just and fair outcomes however they can sometimes be unsuccessful, therefore only achieve justice and fairness to a certain extent.

Thanks again

[jamonwindeyer]

Thanks so much again!!!!

One last thing I promise haha

for this question: “The adversary system always achieves just and fair outcomes” Discuss this statement with reference to the various elements of the adversary system (I also have to include he Rogerson - McNamara case in it)

Is this introduction and conclusion enough?? I am just worried that I haven't made a clear judgement

intro: The adversary system has several elements which achieve just and fair outcomes to a certain extent. Elements of the adversary system include the court listening to the arguments of opposing sides, the judge being impartial, and the use of a jury. Each of these elements can achieve just and fair outcomes, as shown in the R v Rogerson R v Mcnamara (2016) cases, however they can also they can also be unsuccessful.

conc: The elements of the adversary system used in the Roger Rogerson and Glen McNamara case provided a just and fair outcome as both men were sentenced to life imprisonment. The adversary system has many elements including impartial judges, the court listens to the arguments of each side and the use juries which attempt to achieve just and fair outcomes however they can sometimes be unsuccessful, therefore only achieve justice and fairness to a certain extent.

Thanks again

I think they are solid; I think the conclusion has a nice judgement in it; it doesn't have to be a completely positive or negative assessment. You've gone for somewhere in the middle, which works! My main comment would actually be defining what you mean by a just and fair outcome - What does this mean? What does the adversarial system have to do for this to be achieved? Besides that, I think the judgement is relatively clear, but the introduction could make it a little more definitive what the judgement actually is. You've not really given a definitive, "Therefore, ________" like you did in the conclusion

[parthie]

I think they are solid; I think the conclusion has a nice judgement in it; it doesn't have to be a completely positive or negative assessment. You've gone for somewhere in the middle, which works! My main comment would actually be defining what you mean by a just and fair outcome - What does this mean? What does the adversarial system have to do for this to be achieved? Besides that, I think the judgement is relatively clear, but the introduction could make it a little more definitive what the judgement actually is. You've not really given a definitive, "Therefore, ________" like you did in the conclusion

Thank so much!!!

Would you happen to know if there are negatives to "presumption of innocence" because Ive been researching it but I can't find anything

[elysepopplewell]

Thank so much!!!

Would you happen to know if there are negatives to "presumption of innocence" because Ive been researching it but I can't find anything

I can't find too many negatives to the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption either - only debate online that suggests perhaps even when proven guilty, you still could be innocent. But that opens another can of worms. I think it's a pretty safe bet to say innocent until proven guilty is a largely positive aspect of our legal system. If I'm teasing it out a bit, I could suggest that perhaps this could be traumatic for a victim or demanding on society, to provide a trial for someone with overwhelming evidence to prove guilt. But, I think the fair trial benefits outweigh this possible negative!

[parthie]

I can't find too many negatives to the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption either - only debate online that suggests perhaps even when proven guilty, you still could be innocent. But that opens another can of worms. I think it's a pretty safe bet to say innocent until proven guilty is a largely positive aspect of our legal system. If I'm teasing it out a bit, I could suggest that perhaps this could be traumatic for a victim or demanding on society, to provide a trial for someone with overwhelming evidence to prove guilt. But, I think the fair trial benefits outweigh this possible negative!

Ok Thankyou so much for all your help!!

[elysepopplewell]

Ok Thankyou so much for all your help!!

No worries! It sounds like you're really getting a hold of Legal, keep up the great work!

[SSSS]

Hey    So I have half yearlies in 3 weeks!!    My notes for crime is completed and my evidence is nearly complete. At the moment we are also doing human rights, so I am doing my notes and evidence as I go because we would only have 1 week revision then the exam. The problem is I want to do so much because theres SO much content whihc is terrifying me. But I wanted to hear your advice on what is a realistic plan which will allow me to get 95% (I know its high but I really believe I can get it). So I was going to memorise all my content and evidence this week, along with roughly doing the right hand side questions to ensure that I have a good understanding. The next week I was planning to do the right hand side questions under exam conditions, and work on feedbeck regarding essays and content. The last week, I will be doing past papers (2-3). For human rights, I am doing my notes and evidence as we go. As it is in three sections, whenever we complete one section, i memorise the content and evidence and do the right hand side questions. The past papers will also assist in mastering it. On top of all this, I will look at amazing short answer responses and essays to get an overall understanding. How does that sound?? Thanks so much just for reading this by the way, you guys are lifesavers!!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey    So I have half yearlies in 3 weeks!!    My notes for crime is completed and my evidence is nearly complete. At the moment we are also doing human rights, so I am doing my notes and evidence as I go because we would only have 1 week revision then the exam. The problem is I want to do so much because theres SO much content whihc is terrifying me. But I wanted to hear your advice on what is a realistic plan which will allow me to get 95% (I know its high but I really believe I can get it). So I was going to memorise all my content and evidence this week, along with roughly doing the right hand side questions to ensure that I have a good understanding. The next week I was planning to do the right hand side questions under exam conditions, and work on feedbeck regarding essays and content. The last week, I will be doing past papers (2-3). For human rights, I am doing my notes and evidence as we go. As it is in three sections, whenever we complete one section, i memorise the content and evidence and do the right hand side questions. The past papers will also assist in mastering it. On top of all this, I will look at amazing short answer responses and essays to get an overall understanding. How does that sound?? Thanks so much just for reading this by the way, you guys are lifesavers!!

Hey SSSS! Wow, it sounds like you are absolutely smashing it! You are way more on top of it than I was at this point in my HSC. Seriously, congrats, to get to this first big checkpoint and be feeling so in control is a huge accomplishment in itself

Good on you for aiming high in your exam! Wow 3 weeks... It's a bit early isn't it, Week 5? Is your school doing them early or am I out of whack again, ahaha

Anyway, I really like your plan. Don't let the content scare you - There is plenty of time to memorise it. If anything, I'd suggest spreading your past papers over the 2 weeks before your exam. Do a past paper, mark it/get feedback, then do questions/tackle syllabus outcomes to address any holes in your knowledge. This way, your practice can actually reveal weaknesses and you have time to fix them! If you do all your practice near the end, and find something you want to improve, then that becomes a bit more of a rush. I always go in with two weeks to be doing practice exams (or at least, that's the aim); I expect to have things I need to improve on and that is when I go back to the syllabus and focus more heavily on things that need work

That said, you sound super in control and super confident. You'll probably do way better in your half yearlies than I did - You sound like you are in a much better place than me great stuff!

[SSSS]

Thank you so much!! I'm so relieved because I thought I was behind. And yeah, my school is doing half yearlies very early for some reason. Anyways, thank you so much!!

[phebsh]

Hey!
So I have exams pretty soon... I'm talking like the first 2 weeks of next month... I bought the legal studies notes from you guys when I came to the lectures and I've also written my own notes for Human Rights (which is the first topic my class did). I don't know if it's wise to continue writing out my own notes as well as studying from the Notes I bought... Would that be a waste of time? Or would it be useful because I'm almost explaining everything to myself?
Thank you!

[elysepopplewell]

Hey!
So I have exams pretty soon... I'm talking like the first 2 weeks of next month... I bought the legal studies notes from you guys when I came to the lectures and I've also written my own notes for Human Rights (which is the first topic my class did). I don't know if it's wise to continue writing out my own notes as well as studying from the Notes I bought... Would that be a waste of time? Or would it be useful because I'm almost explaining everything to myself?
Thank you!

Hey! I hope you're finding the notes you purchased to be helpful! Your exams certainly are soon!
My approach to studying for Legal, which wasn't really intentional but kind of just happened this way, was writing and re-writing notes. I'd move them from my computer to palm cards, to A4 paper, adding little bits each time or ignoring the things that I know off my heart and aren't important details, etc. So I think perhaps it would be beneficial for you to create a new set of notes, combining your notes and the notes you purchased. I found that writing things out, even if directly from a textbook, made me question "do I actually understand this enough that I could re-word it?" and when I knew I couldn't find a way to put it in my own words and simplify it for my new set of notes, I knew it was a point I had to work on.

If you're looking to create a sacred one-stop-shop for your notes, then combine your notes with the notes you've purchased. Else, you could just add sticky notes to the notes you've purchased with your new cases, little ways that help you remember things, and so on.

Alternatively, you could stop right now and start with palm cards. You can give yourself a palm card per dot point to write down the most important things to know. This way, you're forcing yourself to collate the information in the purchased notes, with your textbook's information, and your own notes, to create a succinct resource in your own style! Personally, I'd take this last approach, it suits my own study style of trying to be succinct and critical of what I do and don't know.

[phebsh]

Hey! I hope you're finding the notes you purchased to be helpful! Your exams certainly are soon!
My approach to studying for Legal, which wasn't really intentional but kind of just happened this way, was writing and re-writing notes. I'd move them from my computer to palm cards, to A4 paper, adding little bits each time or ignoring the things that I know off my heart and aren't important details, etc. So I think perhaps it would be beneficial for you to create a new set of notes, combining your notes and the notes you purchased. I found that writing things out, even if directly from a textbook, made me question "do I actually understand this enough that I could re-word it?" and when I knew I couldn't find a way to put it in my own words and simplify it for my new set of notes, I knew it was a point I had to work on.

If you're looking to create a sacred one-stop-shop for your notes, then combine your notes with the notes you've purchased. Else, you could just add sticky notes to the notes you've purchased with your new cases, little ways that help you remember things, and so on.

Alternatively, you could stop right now and start with palm cards. You can give yourself a palm card per dot point to write down the most important things to know. This way, you're forcing yourself to collate the information in the purchased notes, with your textbook's information, and your own notes, to create a succinct resource in your own style! Personally, I'd take this last approach, it suits my own study style of trying to be succinct and critical of what I do and don't know.

Okay great, thanks so much! And yes, the notes are most definately helpful and are teaching me things I wasn't aware of!! I've never used palm cards to study for exams, but my sister did.. I'm going to go ahead and try that method, Thanks Elyse

[elysepopplewell]

Okay great, thanks so much! And yes, the notes are most definately helpful and are teaching me things I wasn't aware of!! I've never used palm cards to study for exams, but my sister did.. I'm going to go ahead and try that method, Thanks Elyse

A tip from a long-time palm card user: Don't waste your time with the little tiny palm cards for Legal. Get some good sized ones, around the size of your hand. There's a lot to know!

[miss_demeanour]

This is more of a personal query, but is it possible to bounce back from getting 88% in my first legal result? (We were required to do two assessments, and my results were 30/35 and 14/15 respectively.) Do you have any suggestions for recuperating from this subpar outcome? I mean, legal studies isn't considered a very high scaling subject, so how screwed am I, and what can I do to improve?

[phebsh]

This is more of a personal query, but is it possible to bounce back from getting 88% in my first legal result? (We were required to do two assessments, and my results were 30/35 and 14/15 respectively.) Do you have any suggestions for recuperating from this subpar outcome? I mean, legal studies isn't considered a very high scaling subject, so how screwed am I, and what can I do to improve?

I'm actually interested to know if that's considered not-great because I got a 76% on my first assessment which weighed 25%