FREE lectures this September + October | HSC Head Start + Exam Revision: book here | QCE Head Start: book here | VCE Exam Revision: book here

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

September 20, 2019, 03:21:11 am

Author Topic: HSC Legal Studies Question Thread  (Read 221460 times)  Share 

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

MemeKing

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Respect: 0
  • School: James Ruse
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #45 on: April 01, 2016, 05:02:18 pm »
0
Hey!  Just a question regarding essays -

When you talk about a question, let say for example "Assess the effectiveness of the Criminal Investigation Process in achieving justice" - Would you break up your paragraphs into conceptual ideas or just each body paragraph targeting a specific syllabus point?  For example. talking about only police powers in the first paragraph, and then only bail and remand in the next, etc etc.  Or just blending everything in together and structuring it like that?

Sorry if its a bit... confusing   :-\

elysepopplewell

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3236
  • "Hey little fighter, soon it will be brighter."
  • Respect: +964
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #46 on: April 01, 2016, 07:55:53 pm »
0
Hey!  Just a question regarding essays -

When you talk about a question, let say for example "Assess the effectiveness of the Criminal Investigation Process in achieving justice" - Would you break up your paragraphs into conceptual ideas or just each body paragraph targeting a specific syllabus point?  For example. talking about only police powers in the first paragraph, and then only bail and remand in the next, etc etc.  Or just blending everything in together and structuring it like that?

Sorry if its a bit... confusing   :-\

Hey there! What your saying is making complete sense to me - fear not!

You always have the option here. So when you say conceptual ideas, I'm taking that to mean themes and challenges. I always lead my paragraphs either by themes and challenges or by specific examples.

For me personally, I always ended up leading by specific examples in the big exams, and weaving the themes and challenges within. So if you want to talk about police powers for a paragraph, absolutely do that. Then when you need to evaluate after describing the particular point to discuss, you could bring it back to the theme and challenge of balancing the rights of victim/offender/society. Does this make sense?

I find that you'll have more direction by going with syllabus dotpoint/argument, and then support each point with a theme or challenge/conceptual idea.

Let me know if this makes sense? If not, happy to flesh out some more :)
Not sure how to navigate around ATAR Notes? Check out this video!

MemeKing

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Respect: 0
  • School: James Ruse
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #47 on: April 02, 2016, 06:56:18 pm »
+1
Hey thank you!!  Yeah I do get what you mean thanks :)  I've also got a few more question though..  Sorry if I'm asking too much.

For Crime, I'm unsure of how I would answer questions that use the theme "law reform" and "discretion" - as I feel as if I wouldn't have much to talk about.  Maybe for law reform, I could talk about the amendments of LERPA and Bail Act?  And for discretion I could talk about aggravating/mitigating circumstances, mandatory sentencing, and maybe some LEPRA in there too!  But will it be enough?

And one more question, for Human Rights - I'm confused how how separation of powers and division of powers helps promote and enforce human rights in Australia!  Thank you :)

jamonwindeyer

  • Administrator
  • It's Over 9000!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10127
  • Electrical Engineer by day, AN Enthusiast by Night
  • Respect: +3030
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #48 on: April 03, 2016, 01:57:55 pm »
0
Hey thank you!!  Yeah I do get what you mean thanks :)  I've also got a few more question though..  Sorry if I'm asking too much.

For Crime, I'm unsure of how I would answer questions that use the theme "law reform" and "discretion" - as I feel as if I wouldn't have much to talk about.  Maybe for law reform, I could talk about the amendments of LERPA and Bail Act?  And for discretion I could talk about aggravating/mitigating circumstances, mandatory sentencing, and maybe some LEPRA in there too!  But will it be enough?

And one more question, for Human Rights - I'm confused how how separation of powers and division of powers helps promote and enforce human rights in Australia!  Thank you :)

Hey Memeking! You can never ask too much (though we probably can't sit exams for you)  ;)

For your Crime questions, you are pretty much spot on the money!! Law Reform is surprisingly broad, but I know what you mean about there not being TOO much to discuss. Perhaps you could try blending it with another theme, for example, exploring how law reform has improved the achievement of justice/balancing of rights in the criminal justice system. This would, question permitting, allow you to talk about a few other things to round out your response. There is lots to discuss though, pick any part of the syllabus and explain how a change (this could be changes to procedure rather than legislative changes too) has improved the effectiveness of that response/area. Juries, LEPRA, Sentencing, Young Offenders, Bail, lots of things you could include ;D For discretion, I would be talking about those exact things, maybe even including something on young offenders specifically? It doesn't seem like much, but add some detail and some good case studies and you'd be surprised how long it can be! But all in all, for those questions you are right on track  ;D

The separation of powers doctrine, essentially, maintains the rule of law in Australian society. What this does is prevents arbitrary abuse of power by the executive, thus ensuring that the judiciaries and legislature will prevent any potential human rights infringements by the executive. Case in point, North Korea's executive is unchecked, there is no separation of powers, and this is a contributing factor to the multitude of human rights atrocities in that country.

Division of powers is a little different, and not quite as essential. The only thing I would suggest as important here is the fact that the division of powers gives the Commonwealth Foreign Affairs as an exclusive power. This allows them to ratify and enact international HR documents/treaties and impose them on the states, rather than each state doing this individually. This maintains a consistent domestic response to Human Rights Issues  ;D

I hope this helps!!

MemeKing

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Respect: 0
  • School: James Ruse
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #49 on: April 03, 2016, 06:07:07 pm »
+2
Hey Memeking! You can never ask too much (though we probably can't sit exams for you)  ;)

For your Crime questions, you are pretty much spot on the money!! Law Reform is surprisingly broad, but I know what you mean about there not being TOO much to discuss. Perhaps you could try blending it with another theme, for example, exploring how law reform has improved the achievement of justice/balancing of rights in the criminal justice system. This would, question permitting, allow you to talk about a few other things to round out your response. There is lots to discuss though, pick any part of the syllabus and explain how a change (this could be changes to procedure rather than legislative changes too) has improved the effectiveness of that response/area. Juries, LEPRA, Sentencing, Young Offenders, Bail, lots of things you could include ;D For discretion, I would be talking about those exact things, maybe even including something on young offenders specifically? It doesn't seem like much, but add some detail and some good case studies and you'd be surprised how long it can be! But all in all, for those questions you are right on track  ;D

The separation of powers doctrine, essentially, maintains the rule of law in Australian society. What this does is prevents arbitrary abuse of power by the executive, thus ensuring that the judiciaries and legislature will prevent any potential human rights infringements by the executive. Case in point, North Korea's executive is unchecked, there is no separation of powers, and this is a contributing factor to the multitude of human rights atrocities in that country.

Division of powers is a little different, and not quite as essential. The only thing I would suggest as important here is the fact that the division of powers gives the Commonwealth Foreign Affairs as an exclusive power. This allows them to ratify and enact international HR documents/treaties and impose them on the states, rather than each state doing this individually. This maintains a consistent domestic response to Human Rights Issues  ;D

I hope this helps!!



Ohhh I see!  Thanks man, helped alot!   ;D

atar27

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: 0
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #50 on: April 12, 2016, 08:40:05 pm »
+1
Hi, For my legal assessment we have to write an essay to this question

Evaluate the effectiveness of legal and non legal measures, both domestic and international, in achieving justice to address the issue of human trafficking and slavery

This is my plan on the paragraphs:
Paragraph one - Legal International Measures (325 words)

Paragraph two - Domestic Legal Response (325)

Paragraph three - International Non Legal Response (352 Words)

Paragraph four - Non legal Domestic Measures (325 words)

I am not quite sure how to start it :(
Any help would be great!! :)

jamonwindeyer

  • Administrator
  • It's Over 9000!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10127
  • Electrical Engineer by day, AN Enthusiast by Night
  • Respect: +3030
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #51 on: April 13, 2016, 11:07:31 am »
0
Hi, For my legal assessment we have to write an essay to this question

Evaluate the effectiveness of legal and non legal measures, both domestic and international, in achieving justice to address the issue of human trafficking and slavery

This is my plan on the paragraphs:
Paragraph one - Legal International Measures (325 words)

Paragraph two - Domestic Legal Response (325)

Paragraph three - International Non Legal Response (352 Words)

Paragraph four - Non legal Domestic Measures (325 words)

I am not quite sure how to start it :(
Any help would be great!! :)

Hey atar27!!

First thing I'd do is think about your view on the issues, and construct a main idea for a Thesis. Do you think everything works amazingly and that the issue is being combatted effectively? Do you think we are doing terribly? DO you think international measures are proving more effective than domestic or vice versa? Think about these things and construct your Thesis, I have a guide on this here!

Then, I would brainstorm paragraphs. You have started this already and I think the plan is great! I would perhaps condensing non-legal responses into one paragraph, because inevitably, there won't be as much to discuss, but see how you go!  ;D

In terms of what to include in those paragraphs, it would be exactly as you expect.

  • For domestic legal responses, look at things like the Criminal Code (Trafficking in Persons) Amendment Act, and cases like R v Ho et.al (2008). Examine how they have shown ineffective/effective response, based on things like efficiency, balancing of rights, etc.
  • For international legal responses, look at UN treaties and international conventions (Slavery Convention, for example). You could include human rights documents as well. Examine these in the same way.
  • For non-legal, you are mostly looking at media response and/or reports. You could include work by the International Labour Organisations, and I believe there is still non legal UN based initiatives responding to slavery. Consider these in a similar way, do they work? Do they assist the legal responses in useful ways?

Hope this helps to get you going!!  ;D

atar27

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: 0
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #52 on: April 14, 2016, 11:40:15 pm »
+2
Thank You so Much Jamon!, That helped heaps! I have a much clear idea as to what I need to do.

nay103

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Respect: 0
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2016, 07:30:06 pm »
+1
Hey there!

I'm really confused about how to go to answer this essay question on family:

With reference to contemporary issues concerning families, to what extent has the law responded to problems arising within family relationships? 

As the first part comes from the third part of the syllabus and the second part of the question comes from the second part of the syllabus (wording wise). It seems that the 'problems arising within family relationships' is the most important part, so I've written my essay based around that and thought to sprinkle 'contemporary issues concerning families' in. But I found this to be super difficult since the problems and issues don't seem to have much to do with each other. So I was just wondering have I misinterpreted the question and/or does 'contemporary issues concerning families' mean I can talk about that broadly (i.e. not just what the syllabus sets out.)

Does that make sense?? I am just super confused!

Thanks!
HSC 2016: Subjects:
| English Advanced | English Extension 1 | Mathematics Extension I | Mathematics Extension 2 | Legal Studies | Physics | Heritage Japanese |

2015:
| Mind and Morality |

jamonwindeyer

  • Administrator
  • It's Over 9000!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10127
  • Electrical Engineer by day, AN Enthusiast by Night
  • Respect: +3030
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #54 on: April 19, 2016, 11:08:29 pm »
0
Hey there!

I'm really confused about how to go to answer this essay question on family:

With reference to contemporary issues concerning families, to what extent has the law responded to problems arising within family relationships? 

As the first part comes from the third part of the syllabus and the second part of the question comes from the second part of the syllabus (wording wise). It seems that the 'problems arising within family relationships' is the most important part, so I've written my essay based around that and thought to sprinkle 'contemporary issues concerning families' in. But I found this to be super difficult since the problems and issues don't seem to have much to do with each other. So I was just wondering have I misinterpreted the question and/or does 'contemporary issues concerning families' mean I can talk about that broadly (i.e. not just what the syllabus sets out.)

Does that make sense?? I am just super confused!

Thanks!

Hey there nay!

Let me start by saying I totally agree with you, the wording of this question is really confusing!  ??? I'll give my interpretation of it, but I don't think this has a clear answer. If this happens to be for an assignment of some sort, I'd definitely be asking whoever wrote the question  :)

With that in mind, you are correct, this references two completely separate aspects of the Legal Syllabus. So, I would say that you are free to interpret the question as focusing on either the problems in family relationships, or the contemporary issues. I would back up your interpretation, I think the focus should be on problems in family relationships.

There are definitely ways to link the two though! For example, a response may focus on divorce (problems), with reference to changing nature of parental responsibility and care and protection of children. You can even simply focus on the contemporary issues, framing those as problems in family relationships. The point being, you are free to interpret it as you wish (in my opinion), as long as your essay links your interpretation to the question effectively.

So, my advice would be to try and discuss the responses to problems in family relationships in a contemporary settings! Chat about how children are protected in divorce proceedings. What are the legal consequences of separation for homosexual couples. Think of combinations like these which work for the general essay structure you have begun developing!  This is definitely difficult, but absolutely doable, there is lots of content to cover and so you will have lots to discuss. For example, you could do an essay focusing on the care and protection of children, and examine domestic violence, divorce, and separation as your paragraphs. Lots of wiggle room! ;D

In summary, I think you are totally okay to interpret this question with a little bit of leniency from the syllabus! Try to link both if you can, and I do think this is what the author of the question had in mind, but anything will work if it is linked correctly  ;D I hope this helps!!

matilda_woody

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Respect: 0
  • School: Nagle College
  • School Grad Year: 2016
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #55 on: May 04, 2016, 10:32:52 pm »
+1
Ok, this is going to be a really, really stupid question. Very stupid. But: I still (after a year and a half) don't get the difference between the division and separation of powers. I now the Legal Studies presentation at the beginning of the year in Sydney with Elyse briefly touched on it, but I still don't really comprehend it.

Sorry...

jamonwindeyer

  • Administrator
  • It's Over 9000!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10127
  • Electrical Engineer by day, AN Enthusiast by Night
  • Respect: +3030
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #56 on: May 04, 2016, 11:13:22 pm »
+1
Ok, this is going to be a really, really stupid question. Very stupid. But: I still (after a year and a half) don't get the difference between the division and separation of powers. I now the Legal Studies presentation at the beginning of the year in Sydney with Elyse briefly touched on it, but I still don't really comprehend it.

Sorry...

Hey Matilda!! First of all, no such thing as a stupid question!!  ;D

Okay, so Division of Powers. The Division of Powers is concerned with how the law making powers are divided between the state and federal governments. This is to do with Federation, when the states agreed to turn some of their powers over to the Federal Commonwealth of Australia.

So, for example, only the Federal Government can make laws on defence, foreign affairs, trade. These are called Exclusive Powers, since only the federal government can legislate on these issues.

For some areas, both the state and federal governments can legislate, in a sort of shared arrangement (though any federal laws automatically override state laws, according to Section 109 of the Constitution). These are called Concurrent Powers, and include things like health and education.

Finally, there are areas of law which remain completely the responsibility of the state. These are called Residual Powers. These include civil law, some areas of criminal law, urban planning, etc.

So, that's Division of Powers, how law making power was divided amongst the states and the federal government.

Separation of Powers is a little different, and not specifically enshrined anywhere in Australian law, though the structure of the first few sections of the constitution heavily reflects it. The Separation of Powers is a doctrine which separates government power into three separate branches; legislature (the law makers), executive (the law enactors), and the judiciary (the law interpreters). So in Australia, the House of Reps/Senate would be our legislature, the cabinet would be our executive, and the courts are our judiciary.

Now this is a doctrine that has been around longer than Australia has; rather than being a direct link to Australian law, it is an idea that is viewed as an important aspect of responsible government. However, the doctrine is heavily enshrined in most modern government systems, particularly Westminster Systems like ours. We don't follow it completely though. Ideally, there should be complete separation between the three branches. In Australia, the executive and the legislature overlap quite heavily (the Prime Minister votes in the House of Reps, for example). This is a notion called responsible government, and it is quite contentious for some.

So, as summary: The division of powers is an actual, real thing that is a part of the Australian constitution. It specifies how law making powers are divided between states. The separation of powers is a doctrine, not actually found in Australian law, just reflected in its structure. The doctrine encourages separation between the three branches of government power, as a sort of checks and balances system against corrupt individuals.

I hope this helps a little! Feel free to ask for clarification, this is a really common question for a lot of people  ;D it's annoying the two things have such a similar name, when really, they have nothing to do with each other  ;D





jamonwindeyer

  • Administrator
  • It's Over 9000!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10127
  • Electrical Engineer by day, AN Enthusiast by Night
  • Respect: +3030
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #57 on: May 04, 2016, 11:14:06 pm »
0
Ok, this is going to be a really, really stupid question. Very stupid. But: I still (after a year and a half) don't get the difference between the division and separation of powers. I now the Legal Studies presentation at the beginning of the year in Sydney with Elyse briefly touched on it, but I still don't really comprehend it.

Sorry...

Oh, and never say sorry for asking a question. Like, ever  ;D

elysepopplewell

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 3236
  • "Hey little fighter, soon it will be brighter."
  • Respect: +964
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #58 on: May 05, 2016, 10:51:36 am »
0
Ok, this is going to be a really, really stupid question. Very stupid. But: I still (after a year and a half) don't get the difference between the division and separation of powers. I now the Legal Studies presentation at the beginning of the year in Sydney with Elyse briefly touched on it, but I still don't really comprehend it.

Sorry...

Hey Matilda! Jamon has nailed this, but I will add something that I used to help me remember which term belonged to which - division or separation? This might not make sense to you because its a very obscure way that I've managed to remember it (I'm yet to come up with a simple rhyme or something like that!) but I'll put it out there just in case you're a word person like I am and this may help. But if you're not a word lover, this may not mould with your way of study...worth a shot though!

The point of the division of powers is to delegate the power around, more so because the federal government would be crumbling under responsibilities if it held all of the powers than anything else. So it has to delegate powers to various places. Also, the federal government could be out of touch with the needs of individual states or territories - hence it needs to divide powers to be effective.


The separation of powers is where I enter some word play. If you look at divide and separate, they have different connotations. To divide something is to split it up, share it around, etc.

But to separate something, like you would separate two fighting children, is because when they are together they create something noisy and loud and a headache for everyone. The same goes with the separation of powers. If all the power to make and enact laws laid in one spot... well...that's a simplified way of explaining an autocratic state with one leader who rules all. So to protect our democracy, we have to SEPARATE the powers because if it was all in the hands of a greedy politician then there's potential that we'd all be doomed  :P

It is a simple word play that worked for me. It mightn't for you, but I want to put it out there just incase :)

Also remember, the separation of powers is more important in the HSC course than the division of powers. The D.O.P. is a feature of the prelim syllabus but the S.O.P. is more important in HSC because it protects democracy, consequently protecting human rights. So it is definitely important to know them both because they always seem to pop up in multiple choice to try and trick you. But, the D.O.B. is slightly more important to the HSC course :)

Thanks for coming to the lectures by the way! Hopefully we can see you at some upcoming ones, stay tuned :)
Not sure how to navigate around ATAR Notes? Check out this video!

anotherworld2b

  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Respect: 0
  • School Grad Year: 2017
Re: Legal Studies Question Thread
« Reply #59 on: May 15, 2016, 08:04:01 pm »
0
hello :D
I was wondering if could have some help in how to approach an essay that requires
'Assessing the effectiveness of common law and the similarities and differences between statute and common law'
In particular I have trouble in writing the thesis of the essay in the introduction

What I currently have ...  :'(
'Common law is defined as law that has been developed on the basis of preceding ruling by judges. Statutory laws are written laws passed by legislature and government of a country and those which have been accepted by the society. These similarities and differences between statue and common law reflect the evident effectiveness of common law.'

I was also wondering what kind of strong evidence would be good to incorporate into the essay to support my assessment of the effectiveness of common law. I'm overall quite confused on how to structure this essay that requires assessing the effectiveness of common law and how statue and common law is different yet similar :/

Thank you in advance :D
« Last Edit: May 15, 2016, 08:07:08 pm by anotherworld2b »