15 marker Crime Essay Wording Question (1 Viewer)

[syl273]

hey guys, for questions eg. "evaluate the effectiveness of the domestic and international legal systems in dealing with international crime." (15 marker crime essay)

do we talk about 2 domestic systems and 2 international systems in regards to dealing with international crime, or just one of each? it's just that the plural of 'systems' is making me doubt myself. ^^
+ if so, how would the structure of the paragraphs look like

 

[gammahydroxybutyrate]

hey guys, for questions eg. "evaluate the effectiveness of the domestic and international legal systems in dealing with international crime." (15 marker crime essay)

do we talk about 2 domestic systems and 2 international systems in regards to dealing with international crime, or just one of each? it's just that the plural of 'systems' is making me doubt myself. ^^
+ if so, how would the structure of the paragraphs look like

one example is rarely enough to prove anything in any context, correlation is only possible at 2 examples let alone causation. a proper approach to this question would be observing the interplay between domestic and international legal systems as opposed to treating them as separate and distinct. all international law relies on ratification and voluntary cooperation given the consent-based nature of international jurisdiction and enforcement mechanisms are only as effective as states are willing to cooperate. e.g. see the US withdrawal from ICC jurisdiction and australia threatening withdrawal after allegations of non-compliance with IHRL iirc. domestic systems themselves do not deal with international crime because international crime is a creation of international law - you cannot have one without the other. a good response to this question requires exploring the interplay and reliance and forming a conclusion based on the mechanisms and structure of each system, and likely suggesting where deficits in either might be amended and how.

 

[syl273]

one example is rarely enough to prove anything in any context, correlation is only possible at 2 examples let alone causation. a proper approach to this question would be observing the interplay between domestic and international legal systems as opposed to treating them as separate and distinct. all international law relies on ratification and voluntary cooperation given the consent-based nature of international jurisdiction and enforcement mechanisms are only as effective as states are willing to cooperate. e.g. see the US withdrawal from ICC jurisdiction and australia threatening withdrawal after allegations of non-compliance with IHRL iirc. domestic systems themselves do not deal with international crime because international crime is a creation of international law - you cannot have one without the other. a good response to this question requires exploring the interplay and reliance and forming a conclusion based on the mechanisms and structure of each system, and likely suggesting where deficits in either might be amended and how.

thank you so much!

what would this look like structurally, eg. how many bps, and what would each bp talk about?

i was never taught stuff like "correlation and causation" in terms of my legal paragraph, nor this level of engagement and detailed connection to the question; they usually just explored one concept in the question nd then moved onto the next (eg. here, i talked about the AFP as a domestic system and how it deals with transnational crime and by extension int crime). tips for mentally approaching these questions would be much appreciated if u have any

and what would it look like to include "recommendations on amendments"? i was never taught that either. if you have an example it'd be highly appreciated

 

[gammahydroxybutyrate]

structure is whatever it takes to get your point across, how fast you can write, what examples you have available etc. 3-4 paragraphs seems sufficient.

correlation and causation are fundamentals of argument and essays by extension. if an event seems to happen whenever another event does, they have a correlation, but event 1 does not necessarily cause event 2 just based on the fact they seem to come together. there might be an unknown event 3 that causes both of them. understanding how the system works generally is a better approach in my view to memorising essays hoping to get the right question. if you learned in class that the icc has been relatively unsuccessful to date because of its elective jurisdiction, then you can form an argument around the facts, for e.g. that international crime is prevalent, it is not prosecuted as it is fruitless where a state will not cooperate, and suggest that the international system is ineffective in addressing international crime given it depends upon a domestic legal system's recognition of such crime and willingness to enforce it, and you might suggest that the only real mechanism for international enforcement is the coercive powers of the UN, which a majority of states are members of, and that if the security council were more active in utilising their wide powers, it could be a means to force better compliance with international norms. there are then counter arguments that the security council is essentially deadlocked due to the veto power, e.g. russia ukraine and russia having veto power, and that international law is a lowest common denominator game, where due to cultural differences, settling on a definition of international crime can be difficult as certain acts are more egregious to certain nation states than others.

recommendations on amendments is using common sense to figure out why the law is in the current state that it is, and what realistically might solve the problem. it is often the element that pushes an essay into the full mark range and demonstrates critical engagement. oftentimes the answer is that the current system is the lesser of many evils, and the best compromise that can be found with regard to all the other values in tension. if international crime is rampant because of a lack of enforcement ability, it might be suggested that further extradition treaties be entered into or proposed to allow for pseudo prosecution of international offences at a domestic level, or at least a particular type of crime that states are likely to have a consensus that it is in their interests to extradite, as they would want to deal with the offence in their courts had it occurred against one of their citizens.

from a mindset perspective, a fundamental understanding of the law allows you to at least compose a comprehensible answer to any question, even if you don't have a bunch of specific statistics and media articles prepared. there are often high profile and interesting examples you encounter in class that are relevant to a variety of topics and can be recycled or used by way of analogy even in seemingly unrelated topics. e.g. the lindt cafe siege case and its subsequent impact on bail laws, or the kieran loveridge one punch case leading to the lockout laws and mandatory sentencing, which can be used as examples across almost any question on crime if argued right.

 

[Reasonabledoubt]

structure is whatever it takes to get your point across, how fast you can write, what examples you have available etc. 3-4 paragraphs seems sufficient.

correlation and causation are fundamentals of argument and essays by extension. if an event seems to happen whenever another event does, they have a correlation, but event 1 does not necessarily cause event 2 just based on the fact they seem to come together. there might be an unknown event 3 that causes both of them. understanding how the system works generally is a better approach in my view to memorising essays hoping to get the right question. if you learned in class that the icc has been relatively unsuccessful to date because of its elective jurisdiction, then you can form an argument around the facts, for e.g. that international crime is prevalent, it is not prosecuted as it is fruitless where a state will not cooperate, and suggest that the international system is ineffective in addressing international crime given it depends upon a domestic legal system's recognition of such crime and willingness to enforce it, and you might suggest that the only real mechanism for international enforcement is the coercive powers of the UN, which a majority of states are members of, and that if the security council were more active in utilising their wide powers, it could be a means to force better compliance with international norms. there are then counter arguments that the security council is essentially deadlocked due to the veto power, e.g. russia ukraine and russia having veto power, and that international law is a lowest common denominator game, where due to cultural differences, settling on a definition of international crime can be difficult as certain acts are more egregious to certain nation states than others.

recommendations on amendments is using common sense to figure out why the law is in the current state that it is, and what realistically might solve the problem. it is often the element that pushes an essay into the full mark range and demonstrates critical engagement. oftentimes the answer is that the current system is the lesser of many evils, and the best compromise that can be found with regard to all the other values in tension. if international crime is rampant because of a lack of enforcement ability, it might be suggested that further extradition treaties be entered into or proposed to allow for pseudo prosecution of international offences at a domestic level, or at least a particular type of crime that states are likely to have a consensus that it is in their interests to extradite, as they would want to deal with the offence in their courts had it occurred against one of their citizens.

from a mindset perspective, a fundamental understanding of the law allows you to at least compose a comprehensible answer to any question, even if you don't have a bunch of specific statistics and media articles prepared. there are often high profile and interesting examples you encounter in class that are relevant to a variety of topics and can be recycled or used by way of analogy even in seemingly unrelated topics. e.g. the lindt cafe siege case and its subsequent impact on bail laws, or the kieran loveridge one punch case leading to the lockout laws and mandatory sentencing, which can be used as examples across almost any question on crime if argued right.

Where would you mention the recommendation on ammendments? I was taught to just do like explanation, strengths and weaknesses and conclusion. I'm assuming you would put it after you have finished discussing the strengths/weaknesses perhaps? Also, how would you state it? This seems like a obvious and stupid question but would you just say its recommended from your prespective or the prespective of others like critics to change the law?

I also had another question, if a essay question provides a stimulus like a quote how would you intergate it fully into your essay? I had this in my trials and I thought it was enough just to use the theme like young offenders in my essay and though i was integrating the stimulus. It turns outI wasnt? i ended up getting 12/15 just for that because my teacher said "I wasn't asnwering the stimulus," I got pretty pissed im ngl because my content was more than solid. If you just have any advice on how to approach that, i would really appreciate it.

This was the stimulus:

“The NSW Government has given $26 million to specific communities within NSW to assist in lowering crime statistics, however, this has no achieved the desired result of reducing crime. Offences against property and offences against the person have both increased over the last 12 months. (BOSCAR)

Assess the extent to which the criminal law balances the rights of victims, offenders and society.
In your answer, refer to the above stimulus and other examples.

 

[syl273]

structure is whatever it takes to get your point across, how fast you can write, what examples you have available etc. 3-4 paragraphs seems sufficient.

correlation and causation are fundamentals of argument and essays by extension. if an event seems to happen whenever another event does, they have a correlation, but event 1 does not necessarily cause event 2 just based on the fact they seem to come together. there might be an unknown event 3 that causes both of them. understanding how the system works generally is a better approach in my view to memorising essays hoping to get the right question. if you learned in class that the icc has been relatively unsuccessful to date because of its elective jurisdiction, then you can form an argument around the facts, for e.g. that international crime is prevalent, it is not prosecuted as it is fruitless where a state will not cooperate, and suggest that the international system is ineffective in addressing international crime given it depends upon a domestic legal system's recognition of such crime and willingness to enforce it, and you might suggest that the only real mechanism for international enforcement is the coercive powers of the UN, which a majority of states are members of, and that if the security council were more active in utilising their wide powers, it could be a means to force better compliance with international norms. there are then counter arguments that the security council is essentially deadlocked due to the veto power, e.g. russia ukraine and russia having veto power, and that international law is a lowest common denominator game, where due to cultural differences, settling on a definition of international crime can be difficult as certain acts are more egregious to certain nation states than others.

recommendations on amendments is using common sense to figure out why the law is in the current state that it is, and what realistically might solve the problem. it is often the element that pushes an essay into the full mark range and demonstrates critical engagement. oftentimes the answer is that the current system is the lesser of many evils, and the best compromise that can be found with regard to all the other values in tension. if international crime is rampant because of a lack of enforcement ability, it might be suggested that further extradition treaties be entered into or proposed to allow for pseudo prosecution of international offences at a domestic level, or at least a particular type of crime that states are likely to have a consensus that it is in their interests to extradite, as they would want to deal with the offence in their courts had it occurred against one of their citizens.

from a mindset perspective, a fundamental understanding of the law allows you to at least compose a comprehensible answer to any question, even if you don't have a bunch of specific statistics and media articles prepared. there are often high profile and interesting examples you encounter in class that are relevant to a variety of topics and can be recycled or used by way of analogy even in seemingly unrelated topics. e.g. the lindt cafe siege case and its subsequent impact on bail laws, or the kieran loveridge one punch case leading to the lockout laws and mandatory sentencing, which can be used as examples across almost any question on crime if argued right.

hey, thank you so much! in response to your comment i devised a 350 word paragraph (so 2 body paragraphs) which attempts to incorporate this. i'd like to ask not for particular feedback, but whether this address everything you stated in ur comment (incl. a comprehensive, b6 understanding of the law), and room for improvement

PS. i was also confused on the incorporation of recommendations to improve the law, my integration doesn't look right.

International legal systems are chiefly ineffective in dealing with international crime due to its over-dependence on domestic institutions to enforce relevant legislation to outlaw such. This is evidenced through the International Criminal Court's (ICC) inability to effectively enforce state parties to domestically legislate laws criminalising transnational crimes. Introduced in 2002 by the Rome Statute, the ICC is a permanent independent court centered on the prosecution of individuals alleged to have committed international crimes. However, the ICC's limited jurisdiction for arresting states signatory to the ICC highlights its lack of enforceability in dealing with international crimes. This is evident through Palestinian human rights groups' attempts in 2015 to allege violations of international humanitarian law, such as crimes against humanity, against Israeli officials in the West Bank and Gaza. However, this was rejected due to Israel's denial of ICC's authority, highlighting the ICC’s lack of enforceability in dealing with international crimes due to uncooperation with domestic institutions. Such unwillingness of states to ratify international treaties thus fails to address transnational crimes domestically. While the United Nations (UN), an international body centered on maintaining international peace and security, is theoretically highly effective in meeting society's needs due to its power to enforce UN Conventions upon signatory state, it is highly ineffective in practically surveillancing domestic implementations of international agreements. This is demonstrated through Australia's ineffective enforcement of the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Although the convention criminalises transnational crimes of forced marriage, Australia’s limited enforceability was reflected through in how despite amending the Criminal Code to reflect the convention, only 2 prosecutions were followed out of 237 referrals of forced marriage (Forced Marriage in Australia: A Literature Review, 2015). This consequently highlights the ineffectiveness of domestic law in effectively enforcing the terms of international conventions due to its limited responsiveness towards the contemporary transnational crime scene. Measures of promoting international cooperation between neighbouring domestic institutions would help address deficiencies in domestic systems when responding to international crimes, thus meeting society’s needs. Conclusively, international systems prove ineffective in dealing with international crime due to its overdependence on inadequate domestic systems.

 

[gammahydroxybutyrate]

Where would you mention the recommendation on ammendments? I was taught to just do like explanation, strengths and weaknesses and conclusion. I'm assuming you would put it after you have finished discussing the strengths/weaknesses perhaps? Also, how would you state it? This seems like a obvious and stupid question but would you just say its recommended from your prespective or the prespective of others like critics to change the law?

I also had another question, if a essay question provides a stimulus like a quote how would you intergate it fully into your essay? I had this in my trials and I thought it was enough just to use the theme like young offenders in my essay and though i was integrating the stimulus. It turns outI wasnt? i ended up getting 12/15 just for that because my teacher said "I wasn't asnwering the stimulus," I got pretty pissed im ngl because my content was more than solid. If you just have any advice on how to approach that, i would really appreciate it.

This was the stimulus:

“The NSW Government has given $26 million to specific communities within NSW to assist in lowering crime statistics, however, this has no achieved the desired result of reducing crime. Offences against property and offences against the person have both increased over the last 12 months. (BOSCAR)

Assess the extent to which the criminal law balances the rights of victims, offenders and society.
In your answer, refer to the above stimulus and other examples.

it shouldn't form a basis of your argument, you should lean into it throughout your body paragraphs by assessing which systems have proven effective in which contexts, and explore it in your conclusion.

e.g. re. that q. in consideration of the above discussion, it would seem that an increase in crime is positively correlated to economic strife and the human response to that strife, in a sense that is outside the scope of the law to deal with. however, it may be considered that the deteriorating economic conditions be legislatively accounted for by amendments to allow for subjective economic necessity as a mitigating factor in certain types of offences, particularly larceny and property offences, that do not directly involve personal harm to another individual.

 

[gammahydroxybutyrate]

hey, thank you so much! in response to your comment i devised a 350 word paragraph (so 2 body paragraphs) which attempts to incorporate this. i'd like to ask not for particular feedback, but whether this address everything you stated in ur comment (incl. a comprehensive, b6 understanding of the law), and room for improvement

PS. i was also confused on the incorporation of recommendations to improve the law, my integration doesn't look right.

my main critique of this at a glance is the typical habit of students in essays to say 'this highlights' or 'this shows' this and that, but you haven't actually explained the logical connection at all. its a lot of big words to say not a lot. e.g. a domestic legal system wherein the accused could elect to reject the jurisdiction of the courts as soon as police investigation starts would be deemed highly ineffective and comical - for international law to operate on the same basis is testamentary to its inefficacy. jurisdictional statutes that prevent state withdrawal for a fixed period of time, whilst likely to cause difficulties in obtaining agreement, would seem to ameliorate the above problem of the consent jurisdiction and seems to be a capable model domestically in the form of state referrals of power for fixed periods to the commonwealth.

 

[Reasonabledoubt]

my main critique of this at a glance is the typical habit of students in essays to say 'this highlights' or 'this shows' this and that, but you haven't actually explained the logical connection at all. its a lot of big words to say not a lot. e.g. a domestic legal system wherein the accused could elect to reject the jurisdiction of the courts as soon as police investigation starts would be deemed highly ineffective and comical - for international law to operate on the same basis is testamentary to its inefficacy. jurisdictional statutes that prevent state withdrawal for a fixed period of time, whilst likely to cause difficulties in obtaining agreement, would seem to ameliorate the above problem of the consent jurisdiction and seems to be a capable model domestically in the form of state referrals of power for fixed periods to the commonwealth.

you're the goat good luck for your law career

 

[gammahydroxybutyrate]

you're the goat good luck for your law career

thanks g, my law career is sorted, chilling until i want to take the bar exam. gl for hsc

 

[Reasonabledoubt]

thanks g, my law career is sorted, chilling until i want to take the bar exam. gl for hsc

aye sounds great, thank you!

 

[syl273]

my main critique of this at a glance is the typical habit of students in essays to say 'this highlights' or 'this shows' this and that, but you haven't actually explained the logical connection at all. its a lot of big words to say not a lot. e.g. a domestic legal system wherein the accused could elect to reject the jurisdiction of the courts as soon as police investigation starts would be deemed highly ineffective and comical - for international law to operate on the same basis is testamentary to its inefficacy. jurisdictional statutes that prevent state withdrawal for a fixed period of time, whilst likely to cause difficulties in obtaining agreement, would seem to ameliorate the above problem of the consent jurisdiction and seems to be a capable model domestically in the form of state referrals of power for fixed periods to the commonwealth.

as the other person said, thanks so much! we weren't really taught integration and synthesis of arguments in paragraphs so i'll try practising that before the hscs i actually do enjoy these structures of paras too so you're a lifesaver