Section 1 - Law & Society (2 Viewers)

[ajdlinux]

i put 11C aswell. in my opinion, its more likely to be C than B. natural justice = procedural fairness, and the act of passing a law to compensate victims has nothing to do with procedural fairness.

The one argument I can see for 'natural justice' is that sometimes that term is considered to include the idea of 'justice being served', but in an Australian legal context we concentrate on the hearing rule and the bias rule, and I definitely can't see how those are linked with VOC legislation.

 

[-_-]

Justice is obviously the answer. Justice, conceptually, decrees that an outcome in a trial is considered by society, to be one which is based on their views and beliefs. If that is so, society would 'predict' that decisions are made. I think your missing the point that it is an "outcome". So the "outcome" is predictable as it is aligned to societies moral and ethical understanding of justice.

Im not going to argue about 9 anymore because the question is very silly, and you are misapplying both the case and misreading the question i feel.

For the last time, HREOC, or as our esteemed colleage mentions, The AHRC, does not, have power, to "enforce" only to advocate. While i understand where you are coming from, the answer clearly must be The Local Court, as it is the only answer which has power to enforce. It seems to me irrelevent whether the court actually has jurisdiction or not to deal with such a matter (which frankly i dont see how it could) Yet to me it is obvious, that the local court must be the answer with regard to enforcement, it is impossible to argue that the a delegated body such as the Commission has the right to enforce. It does not have authority or avenues by which to do so.

That question has been in past papers for yonks, the answer has been, and always will be, the Local Court.

 

[jamesjoker]

1. D
2. A
3. C
4. C
5. D
6. B
7. A
8. B
9. A
10. D
11. D
12. D
13. C
14. A
15. C

So maybe 12/15 *crosses fingers* lol

 

[Arix]

Just wondering- what was the answer to the question where two people earn different amounts but they are both fined $100?
Did anyone think it was equality before the law? Because it appears to be an equal decision, to fine everyone the same monetary amount, but really it is an example of institutionalised inequality?
I had to guess that one...........

 

[conorater]

No11 is D. it has to be!

Firstly YOURE AWESOME ty! ok so i got:

1. D
2. A
3. C
4. B (i asked my legal teacher and he agrees its contract. it deff isnt the others)
5. D
6. B
7. A/D i dont remember which i picked in the end
8. B
9. A
10. D
11. A (but i thought they all sounded stupid)
12. D
13. B
14. A (changed from D because the local court could best ENFORCE it )
15. C

and now to compare to what everyone else thinks

 

[sadcase]

I am quite certain that it is Equaltiy before the law. there is no bias (a), and its definitely not discrimination. so it must be Equality.
question 2 is A for sure because what characterises a just law?
it must be enforcreable, acceptible and most importantly discoverable (Known) so yeah.
What is 14? I put D and isn't 11 D?

 

[d3vilz]

Nicholas Cowdery (former DPP):

"Well, I'm still trying to work out question 13: "Some Australian citizens have been denied entry into America because of their criminal records. Which law has been applied?" I would have said American law, but that is not one of the four options. (The answer was "domestic " - I think ... )"

i reckon this was the most confusing mc question.

 

[I.refuse.a.name]

I won't argue this one any more...

But I will

Predictability implies that the result tends to be the same or very similar every time a type of issue comes out. It implies that everyone is treated in the same, predictable manner. Hence the answer is the rule of law, not justice.

Justice is not predictable. It includes notions such as equality which implies predictability,but also fairness indicating that each case is not predictable and determined on its own merits. Further, the notion of how a reasonable person would respond to achieve justice is difficult to predict - the rule of law has THE most predictable outcome of all the options, hence being most correct I strongly believe.

question 9 was not silly it was probably one of the most straight forward questions in the test. if there exists a constitutional right to legal representation, how do you explain cases such as McInns v R 1979? where there was no right to legal representation and the high court ruled that a fair trial had taken place without it.
...
this is CLEAR proof that the answer has to be A->it is not guaranteed for everyone.

Agreed. Definitely no such thing as right to legal representation for all - otherwise people wouldn't be subjected oi means and merits test, with a lot of people not fitting these criteria but not being able to afford a lawyer themselves. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a large proportion of individuals unrepresented in family law cases. Dietrich v. The Queen never went as far to say one has the right to publicly paid legal representation, only to suggest it could result in an unfair trial. Past multiple choice questions also concur with the notion there is no right to legal representation.

Just wondering- what was the answer to the question where two people earn different amounts but they are both fined $100?
Did anyone think it was equality before the law? Because it appears to be an equal decision, to fine everyone the same monetary amount, but really it is an example of institutionalised inequality?
I had to guess that one...........

Wow, I didn't even think about institutional inequality for that question. Whilst to an extent it could be that, it doesn't imply that one party was any more negatively affected in a discriminatory way/couldn't afford to pay or anything so on that basis I believe equality before the law is the most correct answer. If it was institutionalised inequality than I think equality would not be ideal as everyone has different circumstances that in some way or other may imply institutionalised inequality.

Nicholas Cowdery (former DPP):

"Well, I'm still trying to work out question 13: "Some Australian citizens have been denied entry into America because of their criminal records. Which law has been applied?" I would have said American law, but that is not one of the four options. (The answer was "domestic " - I think ... )"

i reckon this was the most confusing mc question.

Hmm, to be honest I've come across a similar multiple choice and the answer was domestic again, although agreed it could have more clarity that it should say American domestic law or something in case people think it may be referring to Australian law. Having said that I am adamant the answer is domestic

 

[jj.oc]

But I will

Predictability implies that the result tends to be the same or very similar every time a type of issue comes out. It implies that everyone is treated in the same, predictable manner. Hence the answer is the rule of law, not justice.

Justice is not predictable. It includes notions such as equality which implies predictability,but also fairness indicating that each case is not predictable and determined on its own merits. Further, the notion of how a reasonable person would respond to achieve justice is difficult to predict - the rule of law has THE most predictable outcome of all the options, hence being most correct I strongly believe.

i chose justice for this question. when i was doing the question i was tossing between justice and the rule of law. in the end, i decided to go with justice because i remembered reading the term "predictability" in the syllabus themes, it was something like "evalutate the effectiveness of the law in terms of...predictability". and since justice is commonly associated with 'the effectiveness of the legal system' [in the context of this course anyway], i figured it wud be most closely linked to justice.

however, from the 2008 mc, if "certainty" is an outcome of the application of the rule of law, then you would think that "predictability" is as well.

irrespectively, i think predictability is still an important component of justice.
we all no that a feature of a just law is that it "aligns to the moral and ethical precepts that a majority of society holds" (source: almost every single HSC legal studies text book)

in the application of any just law, society should be able to predict its outcome as it conforms to these "ethical and moral precepts".
also, predictability = like cases being treated alike = justice.
unpredictablity = randomness in outcome = injustice

in the application of the rule of law, we dont know what the outcome is going to be, we only know that what ever the outcome is going to be, it will be applied equally to everyone, as " noone is above the law"

 

[ajdlinux]

in the application of any just law, society should be able to predict its outcome as it conforms to these "ethical and moral precepts".
also, predictability = like cases being treated alike = justice.
unpredictablity = randomness in outcome = injustice

You can have justice in a particular case without knowing how the outcome will be beforehand, and you can know what the outcome is and it can be completely unjust. You're thinking more about equality than justice.

in the application of the rule of law, we dont know what the outcome is going to be, we only know that what ever the outcome is going to be, it will be applied equally to everyone, as " noone is above the law"

Rule of law requires that the law be known, or at least knowable, and that all cases will be decided according to law. Therefore, once you know what the law is, and once you know that the law will always be applied equally, you have predictability.

 

[jj.oc]

You can have justice in a particular case without knowing how the outcome will be beforehand, and you can know what the outcome is and it can be completely unjust. You're thinking more about equality than justice.

what im doing is relating the characteristics of just law to predictability. equality is a characteristic of just law, and so is that the law reflects the society's morals.

if you cannot predict what the outcome of a law is, then it is not a just law.

 

[jj.oc]

Rule of law requires that the law be known, or at least knowable, and that all cases will be decided according to law. Therefore, once you know what the law is, and once you know that the law will always be applied equally, you have predictability.

the rule of law does not require laws to be known. from question 2 we know that an essential feature of a just law, is that it is known.

if you can connect a law being 'known' to a predictable outcome, then justice has a predictable outcome.

 

[I.refuse.a.name]

You're thinking more about equality than justice.

Agreed. jj.oc, you're only applying ONE of the characteristics of a just law, not considering them ALL in context. If we only considered equality, fairness and equity would be neglected. Institutionalised inequality would prevail.

if you cannot predict what the outcome of a law is, then it is not a just law.

Whilst the characteristic of equality of a just law encourages predictability of outcome we DON'T always know the outcome because OTHER characteristics also apply. Otherwise it would negate the need for a judiciary, the ability to set aside a previous decision, the availability of complete and partial defences.
Predictability would mean discretion is not available in any form, although this plays a significant role in achieving justice also suggested by the Board of Studies in having a Crime question dedicated to it.

the rule of law does not require laws to be known. from question 2 we know that an essential feature of a just law, is that it is known.

if you can connect a law being 'known' to a predictable outcome, then justice has a predictable outcome.

Sorry, but the rule of law states that the law should be known/discoverable. You said it yourself that a just law should be known, this is a direct consequence of the rule of law. If we couldn'ty connect rule of law however, justice would probably be the next best option.

If you still don't agree that's fine. We can wait for the results and then we can figure out who's right

 

[ajdlinux]

the rule of law does not require laws to be known. from question 2 we know that an essential feature of a just law, is that it is known.

if you can connect a law being 'known' to a predictable outcome, then justice has a predictable outcome.

Have a look at Wikipedia (yes, I know, it's not a reliable source, but for the purposes of a hypothetical discussion on an HSC students forum, it's reliable enough) - all three main streams of thought regarding the concept of 'rule of law' believe that the law must be known, and that rule of law serves as a safe guard against arbitrary rule - i.e. rule of law aims for predictability in all government decisions.

 

[jj.oc]

Agreed. jj.oc, you're only applying ONE of the characteristics of a just law, not considering them ALL in context. If we only considered equality, fairness and equity would be neglected. Institutionalised inequality would prevail.

I am not only considering equality. I also considered another characteristic of a just law, "that it reflects society's morals..."

and im sure if you throw any other characteristic of a just law at me i could use it to support my arguement that an outcome of justice is predictablility.

this is just my opinion, i could be wrong, and the only reason that im being so defensive is because thats the answer i put in the test.

"the essence of justice is predictability" http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/I...rts/Documents/Global_Perspectives_Justice.pdf

"justice means predictability in the daily life"
Reconciliation, justice, and ... - Google Books


there is a whole book dedicated to the relationship between justice and predictabliity:
Justice and Predictability (Open Library)

im not going to argue it any more.

 

[ajdlinux]

this is just my opinion, i could be wrong, and the only reason that im being so defensive is because thats the answer i put in the test.

That's the main reason I'm being so defensive too

I must point out that the question did specifically mention 'outcome' - the practical implementation of the rule of law, i.e. publicly known laws, unbiased judges and correct decision making processes, ultimately leads to the outcome of predictable application of the law. As I have already argued, mere application of 'justice' may or may not lead to that.

 

[jj.oc]

Have a look at Wikipedia (yes, I know, it's not a reliable source, but for the purposes of a hypothetical discussion on an HSC students forum, it's reliable enough) - all three main streams of thought regarding the concept of 'rule of law' believe that the law must be known, and that rule of law serves as a safe guard against arbitrary rule - i.e. rule of law aims for predictability in all government decisions.

funnily enough the word predictability is not featured at all in the wikipedia article. but yes i accept what your saying that the law 'must be known', (however the rule of law it is a subjective term, and like justice, everyone has different view on it).

either way, what i was trying to say is that if the law being 'known' is ALSO an essential component of a just law. so, like i said if we can connect a law being known to predictability, then we can also connect a just law to predictability.

NOTE: i have now considered 3 characteristics of a just law

 

[I.refuse.a.name]

this is just my opinion, i could be wrong, and the only reason that im being so defensive is because thats the answer i put in the test.

...

im not going to argue it any more.

Sorry I guess why I'm driving rule of law so hard is pretty much the same reason (that I chose it). Hopefully we can both be right (predictability is a trait that is important for both)

Thus ends my argument (for this question) too.

 

[jj.oc]

Sorry I guess why I'm driving rule of law so hard is pretty much the same reason (that I chose it). Hopefully we can both be right (predictability is a trait that is important for both)

Thus ends my argument (for this question) too.

lol, according to my legal studies teacher, in the marking centre last year, there were teachers arguing for every single one of the 4 options for the rule of law question.
but i guess the only way you can really make a legal studies test hard by making the multiple choice more ambiguous. lets just be thankful they didnt pull a 'studies of religion' sort of question on us.

 

[ajdlinux]

lol, according to my legal studies teacher, in the marking centre last year, there were teachers arguing for every single one of the 4 options for the rule of law question.
but i guess the only way you can really make a legal studies test hard by making the multiple choice more ambiguous. lets just be thankful they didnt pull a 'religion' on us.

I'm sure there were many of the examiners arguing over it in the exam committee six months ago...

Well, we shall find out all in due course. *goes off to write up his raw marks FOI request*