Crime Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Jonathan A

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
1,397
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
wrong_turn said:
no no no. you misunderstand me. this is not fromt he syllabas, but this is from actual law!!! the state of australia as a soveriegn, still has the death penalty for treason. every other crime was abolished, except for treason against the state.

That doesn't make sense. The 'state of australia' is not a source of law, at least not recognised by the courts. You will need to be more specific on which law imposes the death penalty.
 

Jonathan A

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
1,397
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
melsc said:
Thats wat my teacher asked us also...thats the only reason why i thought that was it...

LOL pIRACY my teacher asked us wat it was...and we all said burning CDs LOL

I do recall something like that myself, but as I said, many things in legal studies turn out to be oversimplified at times.

As for piracy, can mean a whole host of crimes. lol
 

melsc

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
6,365
Location
Chasing ambulances in the Inner West...
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
My teacher then told us about an incident he had with pirates...LOL...

Wrong turn - Australia is a nation-state (which has state sovereignty) at international law is that wat u mean?
 

Jonathan A

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
1,397
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
I think I know what he means.

About international law, yes it is not as binding as domestic law, but if it has been ratified it is domestic law. The Constitution says the Commonwealth has the power to impose law (even if it is inconsistent with the states) on "external affairs", as seen in Tasmania Dam's, the High Court's view is that law on a treaty is grounds for this.
 

melsc

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
6,365
Location
Chasing ambulances in the Inner West...
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Jonathan A said:
I think I know what he means.

About international law, yes it is not as binding as domestic law, but if it has been ratified it is domestic law. The Constitution says the Commonwealth has the power to impose law (even if it is inconsistent with the states) on "external affairs", as seen in Tasmania Dam's, the High Court's view is that law on a treaty is grounds for this.
Yea...i had to do something similar to this 4 legal last week...this is a small part of it...

Section 51 of the constitution (Division of powers) gives the Commonwealth “External Affairs Power” therefore, if there is an area which the commonwealth does not have the power to legislate over (as provided by section 51) they can sign a treaty and then can pass a piece of legislation relating to that area of law which they would not normally have power to legislate for.

International law is much less effective in terms of human rights as it lacks enforcement power. The concept of state –sovereignty (that a recognized state has the authority to control its area and people) hinders human rights enforcement as it prevents states from acting within the boundaries of other states. State sovereignty is important as it allows for states to protect and create their own laws, however it does present obstacles in the enforcement of human rights. Despite the existence of treaties protecting human rights, state sovereignty grants each state the power to make its own laws and therefore do not have to enact it into domestic legislation.
 

Jonathan A

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
1,397
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
melsc said:
Yea...i had to do something similar to this 4 legal last week...this is a small part of it...

Section 51 of the constitution (Division of powers) gives the Commonwealth “External Affairs Power” therefore, if there is an area which the commonwealth does not have the power to legislate over (as provided by section 51) they can sign a treaty and then can pass a piece of legislation relating to that area of law which they would not normally have power to legislate for.

International law is much less effective in terms of human rights as it lacks enforcement power. The concept of state –sovereignty (that a recognized state has the authority to control its area and people) hinders human rights enforcement as it prevents states from acting within the boundaries of other states. State sovereignty is important as it allows for states to protect and create their own laws, however it does present obstacles in the enforcement of human rights. Despite the existence of treaties protecting human rights, state sovereignty grants each state the power to make its own laws and therefore do not have to enact it into domestic legislation.

Very good work!
 

Jonathan A

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
1,397
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
melsc said:
Wasnt that established by that old case where the guy went on a boat trip and it was really bad?>?>?>

Yeah, a lady. The Dillon Case, she sued for emotional damage because the trip promised her a good time.
 

wrong_turn

the chosen one
Joined
Sep 18, 2004
Messages
3,664
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2010
treason, which is a crime against the state. this is a state as in australia. i'm not sure exactly where in legislation it says it. but i do remember it being the only crime to which one can be punished with capital punshiment.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top