MaryJane
Extraordinary Machine
According to Anne, it wasnt put up until about 9.30 (when I emailed her) because the person forgot to put the link up at 9. Such organisation!
-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Criminal law (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter MaryJane
- Start date
MaryJane
Extraordinary Machine
lol, ta for the words of encouragement Frigid! 
I have to agree though: studying it has completely turned me off the whole CJS (not that I was ever really a fan).
Has anyone else found in this hypothetical that we could argue basically everything, except for mental illness?
I have to agree though: studying it has completely turned me off the whole CJS (not that I was ever really a fan).Has anyone else found in this hypothetical that we could argue basically everything, except for mental illness?
Cyan_phoeniX
Active Member
And he died from the surgical instrument.. after all that. Would this end up being a case of Attempted murder? Or just plain, straight to the point, murder?
golfstick
balbrady's balbarer
it is clear that i have not read the question properly haha
MaryJane
Extraordinary Machine
Ah, getting ahead for next year James?Cyan_phoeniX said:
Its basically an issue of causation: did she, or did she not murder her husband? If it can be shown that she did not (that is, the hospitals negligence is a intervening act which caused her death -which is suggested in the wording of the hypothetical), then she is either acquitted, or is done on manslaughter... I cant quite remember, but there is a case on it which I have to now re-find!
Overall, I think the questions pretty good... There are lots of defences to discuss, its possible to write 2000.
I must start tomorrow afternoon...
iwannarock
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,256
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
ok i've looked at the question.
looks like causation, battered wife syndrome, intoxication etc seems to be the issues.
after state of origin its time to hit those books.........defences yaaaaaay!
we're not gonna have to talk about basic stuff like mens rea and actus reaus in this are we?.........thats sorta assumed proven. can we just cut straight to the chase and talk about the defences?
talk to me fellow law students i need to leech off you in my time of need.
looks like causation, battered wife syndrome, intoxication etc seems to be the issues.
after state of origin its time to hit those books.........defences yaaaaaay!
we're not gonna have to talk about basic stuff like mens rea and actus reaus in this are we?.........thats sorta assumed proven. can we just cut straight to the chase and talk about the defences?
talk to me fellow law students i need to leech off you in my time of need.
MaryJane
Extraordinary Machine
I'm not going to waste my time with defining mens rea and actus reus... we've only got 2000 words to do this in. I'm confused about intoxication- I hate it! Is the fact that its self-induced mean that she cant rely on it in cases of specific intent (ie. muder/manslaughter)? If so, are we just supposed to say "Yes, she was intoxicated, but as it was self-induced, lets forget it"?
Gah!
Gah!
iwannarock
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,256
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
nooooo surely it can't be that simple.
intoxication was gonna be something i thought i could waste like 500 words on or something.
hmmmmm i got a lot of reading to do. 200 pages.
hopefully i'll actually start writing 2morow afternoon but i doubt it. it'll be an all night thursday night.
maybe next time i reply i might actually know something once i've read this stuff.
intoxication was gonna be something i thought i could waste like 500 words on or something.
hmmmmm i got a lot of reading to do. 200 pages.
hopefully i'll actually start writing 2morow afternoon but i doubt it. it'll be an all night thursday night.
maybe next time i reply i might actually know something once i've read this stuff.
iwannarock
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,256
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
nooooo surely it can't be that simple.
intoxication was gonna be something i thought i could waste like 500 words on or something.
hmmmmm i got a lot of reading to do. 200 pages.
hopefully i'll actually start writing 2morow afternoon but i doubt it. it'll be an all nighter thursday night.
maybe next time i reply i might actually know something once i've read this stuff.
intoxication was gonna be something i thought i could waste like 500 words on or something.
hmmmmm i got a lot of reading to do. 200 pages.
hopefully i'll actually start writing 2morow afternoon but i doubt it. it'll be an all nighter thursday night.
maybe next time i reply i might actually know something once i've read this stuff.
iwannarock
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,256
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
nooooo surely it can't be that simple.
intoxication was gonna be something i thought i could waste like 500 words on or something.
hmmmmm i got a lot of reading to do. 200 pages.
hopefully i'll actually start writing 2morow afternoon but i doubt it. it'll be an all nighter thursday night.
maybe next time i reply i might actually know something once i've read this stuff.
edit: wtf i didnt post 3 times. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! this stupid computer it doesnt know what its doing!
intoxication was gonna be something i thought i could waste like 500 words on or something.
hmmmmm i got a lot of reading to do. 200 pages.
hopefully i'll actually start writing 2morow afternoon but i doubt it. it'll be an all nighter thursday night.
maybe next time i reply i might actually know something once i've read this stuff.
edit: wtf i didnt post 3 times. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! this stupid computer it doesnt know what its doing!
Last edited:
Cyan_phoeniX
Active Member
just a question..
i handed in the law114 take-home, but i want to be certain that they got it. is there a way to find out that they received my assignmnet?
i handed in the law114 take-home, but i want to be certain that they got it. is there a way to find out that they received my assignmnet?
MaryJane
Extraordinary Machine
Nope, no indication whatsoever. Its like most other units: they take esssays, and you dont actually know for sure whether they got it or not until you get your marks back!
If your mark slips to an F, you know they havent got it. But if you handed it in in the right place at the right time, all should be fine. If anything, if yours goes missing, so do 100 other essays which were handed in on the same day.
If your mark slips to an F, you know they havent got it. But if you handed it in in the right place at the right time, all should be fine. If anything, if yours goes missing, so do 100 other essays which were handed in on the same day.
Cyan_phoeniX
Active Member
ok kewl
just wondering (though its not relevant to me!). what if you hand it in late? is that an automatic F? 0 out of 50, ? i always wondered what the case is for take home exams.
just wondering (though its not relevant to me!). what if you hand it in late? is that an automatic F? 0 out of 50, ? i always wondered what the case is for take home exams.
MaryJane
Extraordinary Machine
Umm.. I'm not sure because I've never handed anything in late... I'm assuming it would be like any other assignment: they deduct marks based on how late it is... it might be a mark per day, or maybe even more severe with take-home exams... Not sure sorry!
Cyan_phoeniX
Active Member
its probably very severe. like 30-50% per day. Hopefully, we will never need to know!
MaryJane
Extraordinary Machine
Agreed!
Just a question (and I know this is going to sound stupid), but which defences should one address first? I was told to do it from complete to partial, so you test them all out from the best to the worst. But then, I dont know where to talk about the causation.
I just thought of a really smart-ass way of answering the question which would be way under 2000 words. Have any of you heard of that urban legend about the uni professor who asks kids to disprove the existance of a chair that he puts in front of the class? Everyone is writing about different theories on how to disprove the chairs existence, but the student who gets top marks simply writes "What chair?".
Well, I think I have discovered something similar in this hypothetical... You see, because the accused cant be charged with murder, so really, there is no need for her to even think of defences to murder, or any charge, because she is completely acquitted: she didnt do it in the legal sense. So I am tempted now to just go through the murder aspect, and then say "therefore, the accused does not need to consider defences as she will be acquitted completely". The End!
So, what do you think? Do you think I'd pass?
Just a question (and I know this is going to sound stupid), but which defences should one address first? I was told to do it from complete to partial, so you test them all out from the best to the worst. But then, I dont know where to talk about the causation.
I just thought of a really smart-ass way of answering the question which would be way under 2000 words. Have any of you heard of that urban legend about the uni professor who asks kids to disprove the existance of a chair that he puts in front of the class? Everyone is writing about different theories on how to disprove the chairs existence, but the student who gets top marks simply writes "What chair?".
Well, I think I have discovered something similar in this hypothetical... You see, because the accused cant be charged with murder, so really, there is no need for her to even think of defences to murder, or any charge, because she is completely acquitted: she didnt do it in the legal sense. So I am tempted now to just go through the murder aspect, and then say "therefore, the accused does not need to consider defences as she will be acquitted completely". The End!
So, what do you think? Do you think I'd pass?
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
You'll probably get "This is not philosophy. F.MaryJane said:Agreed!
Just a question (and I know this is going to sound stupid), but which defences should one address first? I was told to do it from complete to partial, so you test them all out from the best to the worst. But then, I dont know where to talk about the causation.
I just thought of a really smart-ass way of answering the question which would be way under 2000 words. Have any of you heard of that urban legend about the uni professor who asks kids to disprove the existance of a chair that he puts in front of the class? Everyone is writing about different theories on how to disprove the chairs existence, but the student who gets top marks simply writes "What chair?".
Well, I think I have discovered something similar in this hypothetical... You see, because the accused cant be charged with murder, so really, there is no need for her to even think of defences to murder, or any charge, because she is completely acquitted: she didnt do it in the legal sense. So I am tempted now to just go through the murder aspect, and then say "therefore, the accused does not need to consider defences as she will be acquitted completely". The End!
So, what do you think? Do you think I'd pass?
MaryJane
Extraordinary Machine
I know! Sigh, it was such a good plan...
iwannarock
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,256
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
for those 2 essays for the takehome last year in jurisprudence, i started writing them on the day after the due date. i ripped through both of them at lightning pace and handed them in the same day. so that was a take home exam i handed in one day late.Cyan_phoeniX said:
for the previous essay i had like a 62............and for the final course mark i ended up with 64. so they couldnt have failed my take home exam. probably just deducted marks for it.
boy i was living on the edge back in first year, not handing essays on time because i "didn't feel like it". "ah its due today but i think i'll start writing it tomorrow"