Login | Register
Enrol now for our new online tutoring program. Learn from the best tutors. Get amazing results. Learn more.

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

January 27, 2021, 04:21:32 am

Author Topic: Free Legal Essay Marking!  (Read 76580 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Korrasami

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: Free Legal Essay Marking!
« Reply #330 on: October 05, 2017, 02:01:32 pm »
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 :D

Hey rodero, just asking if you got the essay I remade earlier?

rodero

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
  • Professional quote and statistic generator
Re: Free Legal Essay Marking!
« Reply #331 on: October 05, 2017, 02:03:02 pm »
Hey rodero, just asking if you got the essay I remade earlier?

Doesn't look like it ! Feel free to send it through one more 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!

caitlinlddouglas

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 106
Re: Free Legal Essay Marking!
« Reply #332 on: October 05, 2017, 03:58:24 pm »
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.


Seriously THANKS SO MUCH rodero!!! I was feeling pretty bad about it, but now I can really see what I have to do. I feel like i write all of that 'fluff' when i'm still trying to work out what to say, but its made it heaps clearer now so THANKYOU!!

paigek3

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
  • My name is Ella
Re: Free Legal Essay Marking!
« Reply #333 on: October 05, 2017, 09:28:42 pm »
YAY FIRST EVER ESSAY MARKED ON ATAR NOTES!!!!!

I was wondering if anyone could pretty please mark my own essay on the criminal trial process. I hope it sounds alright, I haven't been feeling well lately so study has been a struggle buuuut I finally managed to do this  ;D surprisingly, wording my arguments were more of a challenge than I thought so fingers crossed they came through all right!

Thank you!

EDIT: I am happy to have this marked by anyone, Elyse, Jamon, rodero, anyone :)

Spoiler
Assess the effectiveness of the criminal trial process as a means of achieving justice.

The criminal trial process has been a reasonably effective means of achieving justice through the creation of measures to meet the needs of victims, offenders and society. Justice is enabled when the balance of rights of all parties in the criminal trial process is achieved to the best of the criminal justice system’s ability, particularly through the use of juries, allowing charge negotiation, and ensuring all evidence is received and used impartially and fairly.

The use of a jury system plays a vital role in being a significantly effective source of achieving justice within the criminal trial process. A jury is able to reflect society’s needs in the decisions they make, rather than the criminal trial be solely handled from a judicial point of view. The Jury Act 1912 (NSW) brought the initial use of the jury into the criminal trial process, later amended by the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), which extended definitions and outlined further sections to the Act to ensure the system is not abused. However, prior to the Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 NSW, verdicts made by juries had to be unanimous. This law reform was extraordinary in allowing even greater justice to come out of the jury system by preventing cases of a rogue juror purposely dissenting against the rest of the jury for their own personal interest rather than for the greater good of the community. The importance of allowing majority verdicts was seen in the case of the Lin Family Murders, where after four trials as a result of hung juries, Robert Xie was found guilty in early 2017 through a 11-1 majority verdict. This case may not have been able to be closed if the reform did not happen, and thus justice would not have been achieved for the victims, or society. The jury system, and in particular the reforms that have allowed majority verdicts have been undoubtedly effective in achieving justice for all parties within the criminal trial process.

The criminal trial process must also take into account the right of offenders when proceedings take place to ensure justice is achieved for all. Legislation embedded in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) has been a reasonably effective means of achieving justice by assuring actions taken are fair for all parties in a criminal trial. Section 138 of the act outlines that evidence must be legally obtained for it to be admissible in court. However, whilst this may create fairness, the outcome may not always be seen as correct by victims or society. This can be seen in the case of R v Atkins, where the evidence on police tapes were “ruled as inadmissible evidence, as police at the time had not informed him he was a suspect,” as stated in an article by the ABC in 2016. As a result of the limited amount evidence given through this and Atkins refusal to give evidence of his own, he was acquitted by the jury of the murder and manslaughter of Matthew Leveson. Near a decade later it was still unclear how Leveson was killed, therefore Atkins was “granted a certificate under section 61 of the Coroner’s Act which allowed him immunity from prosecution,” to lead police to the body of Leveson, where he was found, the article continued to say. Legislation created surrounding the use of evidence within the criminal trial process may cause some proceedings to seem morally wrong to victims and society. However, the protections entrenched in this guarantees the rights of all parties are protected, and thus justice is achieved.

Charge negotiation has been a partially effective measure in achieving justice, particularly for victims, within the criminal trial process. Injustice within cases may arise from a variety of factors including inequality in the level of accreditation and experience within representation due to socio-economic status, or the incorrect dealing with evidence during the criminal investigation process as mentioned, and thus it can result in the untruthful decision eventually being made. Charge negotiation has been created to ensure justice can be achieved more efficiently and effectively during the criminal trial process. According to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission’s report 147, 83% of all criminal matters in the District Court of New South wales are resolved by a guilty plea, and charge negotiation has played a substantial role in generating this statistic. Section 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2010 (NSW) outlines the procedures of charge negotiation, including the need for the DPP to sign a certificate to say that not only the victim, but also the police officer in charge have seen the agreed statement of facts. This protection ensures that prosecutors are not entering into agreements for their own reputation, and are instead putting achieving justice for the victim as their first priority. Reaching a guilty plea early on in the criminal trial process spares the trauma the victim may have had to go through otherwise, and guarantees that a suitable punishment will be handed down to the offender in accordance with Section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act). However, charge negotiation may not always have this justly outcome. As a part of the negotiation, the charge is likely to be down graded, meaning the offender may receive a lighter punishment than if the criminal trial process was to take place in its entirety. Judge Berman mentioned in an article by the Daily Telegraph in 2016 that “It is a fundamental part of a proper criminal justice system that offenders are sentenced for what they have actually done and a sentencing judge should never be misled in assessing the criminality of a particular offender’s conduct.” Therefore, whilst charge negotiation has the ability of being an effective means of achieving justice within the criminal trial process, it opportunity for verdicts to end up lighter on offenders than it morally should can cause an injustice for victims.

The role and reform of the jury system, and the purposes of charge negotiation have been effective in achieving justice, however there are chances for fault. Although, their ability to create justice whilst balancing the rights and needs of victims, offenders and society has been significant, and thus the process has been relatively effective in achieving justice.



« Last Edit: October 06, 2017, 11:18:38 am by paigek3 »
HSC subjects
Advanced English | Extension 1 English | Extension 2 English | Legal Studies | PDHPE | Society and Culture | General 2 Maths


Need HSC tutoring, mentoring or essay marking? I'm offering all of that online! Check out all the offers, pricing and details here https://bandsevenhsctutoring.wordpress.com/blog/ and feel free to get in contact with me if you want any more info :)

rodero

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
  • Professional quote and statistic generator
Re: Free Legal Essay Marking!
« Reply #334 on: October 06, 2017, 03:23:16 pm »
If nobody has gotten to you yet, I can mark it sometime tonight
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!

paigek3

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
  • My name is Ella
Re: Free Legal Essay Marking!
« Reply #335 on: October 06, 2017, 04:07:21 pm »
If nobody has gotten to you yet, I can mark it sometime tonight

Thank you!
HSC subjects
Advanced English | Extension 1 English | Extension 2 English | Legal Studies | PDHPE | Society and Culture | General 2 Maths


Need HSC tutoring, mentoring or essay marking? I'm offering all of that online! Check out all the offers, pricing and details here https://bandsevenhsctutoring.wordpress.com/blog/ and feel free to get in contact with me if you want any more info :)

rodero

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
  • Professional quote and statistic generator
Re: Free Legal Essay Marking!
« Reply #336 on: October 07, 2017, 08:43:39 am »
YAY FIRST EVER ESSAY MARKED ON ATAR NOTES!!!!!

I was wondering if anyone could pretty please mark my own essay on the criminal trial process. I hope it sounds alright, I haven't been feeling well lately so study has been a struggle buuuut I finally managed to do this  ;D surprisingly, wording my arguments were more of a challenge than I thought so fingers crossed they came through all right!

Thank you!

EDIT: I am happy to have this marked by anyone, Elyse, Jamon, rodero, anyone :)

Spoiler
Assess the effectiveness of the criminal trial process as a means of achieving justice.

The criminal trial process has been a reasonably effective means of achieving justice through the creation of measures to meet the needs of victims, offenders and society. Justice is enabled when the balance of rights of all parties in the criminal trial process is achieved to the best of the criminal justice system’s ability, particularly through the use of juries, allowing charge negotiation, and ensuring all evidence is received and used impartially and fairly.

The use of a jury system plays a vital role in being a significantly effective source of achieving justice within the criminal trial process. A jury is able to reflect society’s needs in the decisions they make, rather than the criminal trial be solely handled from a judicial point of view. The Jury Act 1912 (NSW) brought the initial use of the jury into the criminal trial process, later amended by the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), which extended definitions and outlined further sections to the Act to ensure the system is not abused. However, prior to the Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 NSW, verdicts made by juries had to be unanimous. This law reform was extraordinary in allowing even greater justice to come out of the jury system by preventing cases of a rogue juror purposely dissenting against the rest of the jury for their own personal interest rather than for the greater good of the community. The importance of allowing majority verdicts was seen in the case of the Lin Family Murders, where after four trials as a result of hung juries, Robert Xie was found guilty in early 2017 through a 11-1 majority verdict. This case may not have been able to be closed if the reform did not happen, and thus justice would not have been achieved for the victims, or society. The jury system, and in particular the reforms that have allowed majority verdicts have been undoubtedly effective in achieving justice for all parties within the criminal trial process.

The criminal trial process must also take into account the right of offenders when proceedings take place to ensure justice is achieved for all. Legislation embedded in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) has been a reasonably effective means of achieving justice by assuring actions taken are fair for all parties in a criminal trial. Section 138 of the act outlines that evidence must be legally obtained for it to be admissible in court. However, whilst this may create fairness, the outcome may not always be seen as correct by victims or society. This can be seen in the case of R v Atkins, where the evidence on police tapes were “ruled as inadmissible evidence, as police at the time had not informed him he was a suspect,” as stated in an article by the ABC in 2016. As a result of the limited amount evidence given through this and Atkins refusal to give evidence of his own, he was acquitted by the jury of the murder and manslaughter of Matthew Leveson. Near a decade later it was still unclear how Leveson was killed, therefore Atkins was “granted a certificate under section 61 of the Coroner’s Act which allowed him immunity from prosecution,” to lead police to the body of Leveson, where he was found, the article continued to say. Legislation created surrounding the use of evidence within the criminal trial process may cause some proceedings to seem morally wrong to victims and society. However, the protections entrenched in this guarantees the rights of all parties are protected, and thus justice is achieved.

Charge negotiation has been a partially effective measure in achieving justice, particularly for victims, within the criminal trial process. Injustice within cases may arise from a variety of factors including inequality in the level of accreditation and experience within representation due to socio-economic status, or the incorrect dealing with evidence during the criminal investigation process as mentioned, and thus it can result in the untruthful decision eventually being made. Charge negotiation has been created to ensure justice can be achieved more efficiently and effectively during the criminal trial process. According to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission’s report 147, 83% of all criminal matters in the District Court of New South wales are resolved by a guilty plea, and charge negotiation has played a substantial role in generating this statistic. Section 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2010 (NSW) outlines the procedures of charge negotiation, including the need for the DPP to sign a certificate to say that not only the victim, but also the police officer in charge have seen the agreed statement of facts. This protection ensures that prosecutors are not entering into agreements for their own reputation, and are instead putting achieving justice for the victim as their first priority. Reaching a guilty plea early on in the criminal trial process spares the trauma the victim may have had to go through otherwise, and guarantees that a suitable punishment will be handed down to the offender in accordance with Section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act). However, charge negotiation may not always have this justly outcome. As a part of the negotiation, the charge is likely to be down graded, meaning the offender may receive a lighter punishment than if the criminal trial process was to take place in its entirety. Judge Berman mentioned in an article by the Daily Telegraph in 2016 that “It is a fundamental part of a proper criminal justice system that offenders are sentenced for what they have actually done and a sentencing judge should never be misled in assessing the criminality of a particular offender’s conduct.” Therefore, whilst charge negotiation has the ability of being an effective means of achieving justice within the criminal trial process, it opportunity for verdicts to end up lighter on offenders than it morally should can cause an injustice for victims.

The role and reform of the jury system, and the purposes of charge negotiation have been effective in achieving justice, however there are chances for fault. Although, their ability to create justice whilst balancing the rights and needs of victims, offenders and society has been significant, and thus the process has been relatively effective in achieving justice.





Sorry for the delay! Had a busy day yesterday :)

Assess the effectiveness of the criminal trial process as a means of achieving justice.

Essay with feedback
Spoiler
The criminal trial process has been a reasonably effective means of achieving justice through the creation of measures to meet the needs of victims, offenders the accused, and society. Great thesis! The only change I'd recommend is that you say 'the accused' instead of offenders. We're currently in the trial process, so they haven't been found guilty yet Justice is enabled when the balance of rights of all parties in the criminal trial process is achieved to the best of the criminal justice system’s ability, particularly through the use of juries, allowing charge negotiation, and ensuring all evidence is received and used impartially and fairly. I understand that you want to keep the intro short to save time, but it would be ideal if you could add a few more sentences here. Reason being is that you need to set up a strong argument from the get-go. You've done a great job with your thesis statement but try to elaborate on it some more. Why has it only been reasonably effective? What's working, and what's not?

The use of a jury system plays a vital role in being a significantly effective source of achieving justice within the criminal trial process.Great!
 Try to keep your other thesis statements like this
A jury is able to reflect society’s needs in the decisions they make, rather than the criminal trial be solely handled from a judicial point of view.Nice! The Jury Act 1912 (NSW) brought the initial use of the jury into the criminal trial process, later amended by the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), which extended definitions and outlined further sections to the Act to ensure the system is not abused.This history of the jury system isn't doing much for you. I mean sure, it counts as legislation so technically it adds to your essay. However, it's fairly weak. Your statement about how the jury system can reflect the values of society, together with the 2006 amendment is enough. However, prior to the Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 NSW, verdicts made by juries had to be unanimous.You haven't really told me what the amendment actually did, you only really said what the legislation was like before the amendment The Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 NSW allows for a verdict of 10:2 and a 11:1 to satisfy a conviction, rather than the previous unanimous vote. This law reform was extraordinary in allowing even greater justice to come out of the jury system by preventing cases of a rogue juror purposely dissenting against the rest of the jury for their own personal interest rather than for the greater good of the community.This is a very bold statement - I'd recommend that you have a statistic such as the amount of hung juries prior to the amendment in order to prove this. The importance of allowing majority verdicts was seen in the case of the Lin Family Murders, where after four trials as a result of hung juries, Robert Xie was found guilty in early 2017 through a 11-1 majority verdict. This case may not have been able to be closed if the reform did not happen, and thus justice would not have been achieved for the victims, or society. Refer to my comment below - was justice actually achieved?The jury system, and in particular the reforms that have allowed majority verdicts have been undoubtedly effective in achieving justice for all parties within the criminal trial process. I think that your overall argument is a bit limiting. First off, I'll say that the jury system isn't all that great, and I'd like to see you discuss that in your essay. The 2006 amendment, while allowing for less hung juries, hampers the rights of the accused as the standard of proof is decreased. Furthermore, the case of R v Xie is considered to be the longest murder trial in NSW history. Think about the emotional trauma that the witnesses had to relive as a result of all the retrials, and the millions of dollars that taxpayers (society) had to fork up. So in actuality, it's fairly inaccurate to classify it as 'highly' effective - I'd rather you say partial, just so that it's in line with the argument you produced in your intro. A bit of nuance shows much more sophistication as well. Another point would be jury misconduct - the issue of juries attempting to find the facts of the case outside of trial. Mainly seen in R v Skaf and R v Karakaya. You could remove some of the history of the Jury Act that you can fit this in

The criminal trial process must also take into account the right of offenders when proceedings take place to ensure justice is achieved for all. Legislation embedded in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) has been a reasonably effective means of achieving justice by assuring actions taken are fair for all parties in a criminal trial.I'd prefer if you rejigged the past two sentences a bit. Mainly, move the 'reasonably effective' into your first sentence so that your thesis is actually answering the question Section 138 of the act outlines that evidence must be legally obtained for it to be admissible in court. However, whilst this may create fairness, the outcome may not always be seen as correct by victims or society. This can be seen in the case of R v Atkins, where the evidence on police tapes were “ruled as inadmissible evidence, as police at the time had not informed him he was a suspect,” as stated in an article by the ABC in 2016. As a result of the limited amount evidence given through this and Atkins refusal to give evidence of his own, he was acquitted by the jury of the murder and manslaughter of Matthew Leveson. Near a decade later it was still unclear how Leveson was killed, therefore Atkins was “granted a certificate under section 61 of the Coroner’s Act which allowed him immunity from prosecution,” to lead police to the body of Leveson, where he was found, the article continued to say. This is a hefty description of a single case. Try to be a bit more succinct so that you can relate it to the question much quicker In the case of R v Atkins, highly incriminating police tapes were ruled as inadmissible evidence, thus allowing him to be acquitted of murder. It was only a decade later and through an "immunity from prosecution" (ABC 2016) deal with Atkins that the body could be found and solace delivered to the grieving family members. Legislation created surrounding the use of evidence within the criminal trial process may cause some proceedings to seem morally wrong to victims and society. However, the protections entrenched in this guarantees the rights of all parties are protected, and thus justice is achieved to a partial extent. just make sure that your linking statement finishes up with your judgement in relation to the question

Charge negotiation has been a partially effective measure in achieving justice, particularly for victims, within the criminal trial process. Injustice within cases may arise from a variety of factors including inequality in the level of accreditation and experience within representation due to socio-economic status, or the incorrect dealing with evidence during the criminal investigation process as mentioned, and thus it can result in the untruthful decision eventually being made. Charge negotiation has been created to ensure justice can be achieved more efficiently and effectively during the criminal trial process.Good According to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission’s report 147, 83% of all criminal matters in the District Court of New South wales are resolved by a guilty plea, and charge negotiation has played a substantial role in generating this statistic. Section 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2010 (NSW) outlines the procedures of charge negotiation, including the need for the DPP to sign a certificate to say that not only the victim, but also the police officer in charge have seen the agreed statement of facts. This protection ensures that prosecutors are not entering into agreements for their own reputation, and are instead putting achieving justice for the victim as their first priority. This heavy recount doesn't contribute muchReaching a guilty plea early on in the criminal trial process spares the trauma the victim may have had to go through otherwise, and guarantees that a suitable punishment will be handed down to the offender in accordance with Section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act). However, charge negotiation may not always have this justly outcome. As a part of the negotiation, the charge is likely to be down graded, meaning the offender may receive a lighter punishment than if the criminal trial process was to take place in its entirety. Bring in R v Loveridge -> Murder charge is reduced to manslaughter. Lots of public outcry, particularly from the victim's mother Judge Berman mentioned in an article by the Daily Telegraph in 2016 that “It is a fundamental part of a proper criminal justice system that offenders are sentenced for what they have actually done and a sentencing judge should never be misled in assessing the criminality of a particular offender’s conduct.” Therefore, whilst charge negotiation has the ability of being an effective means of achieving justice within the criminal trial process, it opportunity for verdicts to end up lighter on offenders than it morally should can cause an injustice for victims. Hence, charge negotiation is only partially effective in achieving justice in the criminal trial process

The role and reform of the jury system, and the purposes of charge negotiation have been effective in achieving justice, however there are chances for fault. Although However, their ability to create justice whilst balancing the rights and needs of victims, offenders the accused and society has been significant, and thus the trial process has been relatively effective in achieving justice. Good :) Like the intro though, I'd like to see this extended so that you can really elaborate on everything and drive the argument home

Comments in red, suggestions in blue :)

General feedback:
Overall I'd say that it's a fairly strong essay. Your integration of legislation, cases and media are great and your judgement is clear. At times however, you introduce a point and don't really link it back to how this demonstrates the effectiveness of the measure. Try not to just top and tail your judgement but have it persistent throughout. Also try to work on being a lot more succinct. There are major bits of description here that could easily be cut down. This will help you substantially as it allows for the introduction of extra cases, allowing you to show a bit more nuance in your response. I don't think you've really done much in your second body paragraph. I'd recommend that you take up my suggested wording so that you can fit in an extra case. Either that, or swap 'evidence' out for something that has more to talk about, such as defences

I'd give this essay a 12/15, though it's nearing a 13/15 - solid effort, good job :)
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!

paigek3

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
  • My name is Ella
Re: Free Legal Essay Marking!
« Reply #337 on: October 07, 2017, 09:15:25 am »
Sorry for the delay! Had a busy day yesterday :)

Assess the effectiveness of the criminal trial process as a means of achieving justice.

Essay with feedback
Spoiler
The criminal trial process has been a reasonably effective means of achieving justice through the creation of measures to meet the needs of victims, offenders the accused, and society. Great thesis! The only change I'd recommend is that you say 'the accused' instead of offenders. We're currently in the trial process, so they haven't been found guilty yet Justice is enabled when the balance of rights of all parties in the criminal trial process is achieved to the best of the criminal justice system’s ability, particularly through the use of juries, allowing charge negotiation, and ensuring all evidence is received and used impartially and fairly. I understand that you want to keep the intro short to save time, but it would be ideal if you could add a few more sentences here. Reason being is that you need to set up a strong argument from the get-go. You've done a great job with your thesis statement but try to elaborate on it some more. Why has it only been reasonably effective? What's working, and what's not?

The use of a jury system plays a vital role in being a significantly effective source of achieving justice within the criminal trial process.Great!
 Try to keep your other thesis statements like this
A jury is able to reflect society’s needs in the decisions they make, rather than the criminal trial be solely handled from a judicial point of view.Nice! The Jury Act 1912 (NSW) brought the initial use of the jury into the criminal trial process, later amended by the Jury Act 1977 (NSW), which extended definitions and outlined further sections to the Act to ensure the system is not abused.This history of the jury system isn't doing much for you. I mean sure, it counts as legislation so technically it adds to your essay. However, it's fairly weak. Your statement about how the jury system can reflect the values of society, together with the 2006 amendment is enough. However, prior to the Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 NSW, verdicts made by juries had to be unanimous.You haven't really told me what the amendment actually did, you only really said what the legislation was like before the amendment The Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 NSW allows for a verdict of 10:2 and a 11:1 to satisfy a conviction, rather than the previous unanimous vote. This law reform was extraordinary in allowing even greater justice to come out of the jury system by preventing cases of a rogue juror purposely dissenting against the rest of the jury for their own personal interest rather than for the greater good of the community.This is a very bold statement - I'd recommend that you have a statistic such as the amount of hung juries prior to the amendment in order to prove this. The importance of allowing majority verdicts was seen in the case of the Lin Family Murders, where after four trials as a result of hung juries, Robert Xie was found guilty in early 2017 through a 11-1 majority verdict. This case may not have been able to be closed if the reform did not happen, and thus justice would not have been achieved for the victims, or society. Refer to my comment below - was justice actually achieved?The jury system, and in particular the reforms that have allowed majority verdicts have been undoubtedly effective in achieving justice for all parties within the criminal trial process. I think that your overall argument is a bit limiting. First off, I'll say that the jury system isn't all that great, and I'd like to see you discuss that in your essay. The 2006 amendment, while allowing for less hung juries, hampers the rights of the accused as the standard of proof is decreased. Furthermore, the case of R v Xie is considered to be the longest murder trial in NSW history. Think about the emotional trauma that the witnesses had to relive as a result of all the retrials, and the millions of dollars that taxpayers (society) had to fork up. So in actuality, it's fairly inaccurate to classify it as 'highly' effective - I'd rather you say partial, just so that it's in line with the argument you produced in your intro. A bit of nuance shows much more sophistication as well. Another point would be jury misconduct - the issue of juries attempting to find the facts of the case outside of trial. Mainly seen in R v Skaf and R v Karakaya. You could remove some of the history of the Jury Act that you can fit this in

The criminal trial process must also take into account the right of offenders when proceedings take place to ensure justice is achieved for all. Legislation embedded in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) has been a reasonably effective means of achieving justice by assuring actions taken are fair for all parties in a criminal trial.I'd prefer if you rejigged the past two sentences a bit. Mainly, move the 'reasonably effective' into your first sentence so that your thesis is actually answering the question Section 138 of the act outlines that evidence must be legally obtained for it to be admissible in court. However, whilst this may create fairness, the outcome may not always be seen as correct by victims or society. This can be seen in the case of R v Atkins, where the evidence on police tapes were “ruled as inadmissible evidence, as police at the time had not informed him he was a suspect,” as stated in an article by the ABC in 2016. As a result of the limited amount evidence given through this and Atkins refusal to give evidence of his own, he was acquitted by the jury of the murder and manslaughter of Matthew Leveson. Near a decade later it was still unclear how Leveson was killed, therefore Atkins was “granted a certificate under section 61 of the Coroner’s Act which allowed him immunity from prosecution,” to lead police to the body of Leveson, where he was found, the article continued to say. This is a hefty description of a single case. Try to be a bit more succinct so that you can relate it to the question much quicker In the case of R v Atkins, highly incriminating police tapes were ruled as inadmissible evidence, thus allowing him to be acquitted of murder. It was only a decade later and through an "immunity from prosecution" (ABC 2016) deal with Atkins that the body could be found and solace delivered to the grieving family members. Legislation created surrounding the use of evidence within the criminal trial process may cause some proceedings to seem morally wrong to victims and society. However, the protections entrenched in this guarantees the rights of all parties are protected, and thus justice is achieved to a partial extent. just make sure that your linking statement finishes up with your judgement in relation to the question

Charge negotiation has been a partially effective measure in achieving justice, particularly for victims, within the criminal trial process. Injustice within cases may arise from a variety of factors including inequality in the level of accreditation and experience within representation due to socio-economic status, or the incorrect dealing with evidence during the criminal investigation process as mentioned, and thus it can result in the untruthful decision eventually being made. Charge negotiation has been created to ensure justice can be achieved more efficiently and effectively during the criminal trial process.Good According to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission’s report 147, 83% of all criminal matters in the District Court of New South wales are resolved by a guilty plea, and charge negotiation has played a substantial role in generating this statistic. Section 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2010 (NSW) outlines the procedures of charge negotiation, including the need for the DPP to sign a certificate to say that not only the victim, but also the police officer in charge have seen the agreed statement of facts. This protection ensures that prosecutors are not entering into agreements for their own reputation, and are instead putting achieving justice for the victim as their first priority. This heavy recount doesn't contribute muchReaching a guilty plea early on in the criminal trial process spares the trauma the victim may have had to go through otherwise, and guarantees that a suitable punishment will be handed down to the offender in accordance with Section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act). However, charge negotiation may not always have this justly outcome. As a part of the negotiation, the charge is likely to be down graded, meaning the offender may receive a lighter punishment than if the criminal trial process was to take place in its entirety. Bring in R v Loveridge -> Murder charge is reduced to manslaughter. Lots of public outcry, particularly from the victim's mother Judge Berman mentioned in an article by the Daily Telegraph in 2016 that “It is a fundamental part of a proper criminal justice system that offenders are sentenced for what they have actually done and a sentencing judge should never be misled in assessing the criminality of a particular offender’s conduct.” Therefore, whilst charge negotiation has the ability of being an effective means of achieving justice within the criminal trial process, it opportunity for verdicts to end up lighter on offenders than it morally should can cause an injustice for victims. Hence, charge negotiation is only partially effective in achieving justice in the criminal trial process

The role and reform of the jury system, and the purposes of charge negotiation have been effective in achieving justice, however there are chances for fault. Although However, their ability to create justice whilst balancing the rights and needs of victims, offenders the accused and society has been significant, and thus the trial process has been relatively effective in achieving justice. Good :) Like the intro though, I'd like to see this extended so that you can really elaborate on everything and drive the argument home

Comments in red, suggestions in blue :)

General feedback:
Overall I'd say that it's a fairly strong essay. Your integration of legislation, cases and media are great and your judgement is clear. At times however, you introduce a point and don't really link it back to how this demonstrates the effectiveness of the measure. Try not to just top and tail your judgement but have it persistent throughout. Also try to work on being a lot more succinct. There are major bits of description here that could easily be cut down. This will help you substantially as it allows for the introduction of extra cases, allowing you to show a bit more nuance in your response. I don't think you've really done much in your second body paragraph. I'd recommend that you take up my suggested wording so that you can fit in an extra case. Either that, or swap 'evidence' out for something that has more to talk about, such as defences

I'd give this essay a 12/15, though it's nearing a 13/15 - solid effort, good job :)

You are an absolute legend! Thank you soooo much for that! I really don’t know why but I found this question one of the hardest I have done in terms of trying to word my judgements and everything else correctly. I guess maybe because it is such a broad question and it isn’t as easy to show how justice has been achieved as say, law reform!

Thanks again your help is appreciated so much, always happy to look over one of your essay if ever need be!
HSC subjects
Advanced English | Extension 1 English | Extension 2 English | Legal Studies | PDHPE | Society and Culture | General 2 Maths


Need HSC tutoring, mentoring or essay marking? I'm offering all of that online! Check out all the offers, pricing and details here https://bandsevenhsctutoring.wordpress.com/blog/ and feel free to get in contact with me if you want any more info :)

rodero

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
  • Professional quote and statistic generator
Re: Free Legal Essay Marking!
« Reply #338 on: October 07, 2017, 10:20:21 am »
Happy to help :D
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!

Korrasami

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: Free Legal Essay Marking!
« Reply #339 on: October 07, 2017, 11:14:54 am »
Doesn't look like it ! Feel free to send it through one more time :)

Sent it through!

rodero

  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
  • Professional quote and statistic generator
Re: Free Legal Essay Marking!
« Reply #340 on: October 09, 2017, 10:50:35 am »

Sent it through!

Hey :)

Sorry but there might be a bit of a delay in getting the feedback to you! I really need time to buckle down as it's the final week until Paper 1.

Out of curiosity, however, I did have a read through your new essay. Can I just say, it really brings me joy to see people making massive improvements - it's part of why I offer to peer mark in the first place ! Your essay has improved exponentially, and I think you should be proud of it.

I'll get to specific feedback when I can, good luck with the HSC :)
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!

Korrasami

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 70
Re: Free Legal Essay Marking!
« Reply #341 on: October 09, 2017, 04:21:23 pm »
Hey :)

Sorry but there might be a bit of a delay in getting the feedback to you! I really need time to buckle down as it's the final week until Paper 1.

Out of curiosity, however, I did have a read through your new essay. Can I just say, it really brings me joy to see people making massive improvements - it's part of why I offer to peer mark in the first place ! Your essay has improved exponentially, and I think you should be proud of it.

I'll get to specific feedback when I can, good luck with the HSC :)

Really couldn't have improved my essay without your amazing feedback! Hope you smash the HSC!