Help: first assignment (1 Viewer)

[Lainee]

It's easy to argue that some sort of rehabilitation should be available to minors (since the law upholds that minors don't have the judgement of adults) and perhaps even those charged of victimless crimes, but how can you justify allowing rehabilitation for someone that endangers the lives of others by committing driving offences? IMO I don't think you can, by allowing for rehabilitation you're just giving exceptional status to criminals.

Too bad you don't go to USYD and thus don't have to do this assignment. That's a point well-worth arguing or at least including to show discussion of both sides of the issue.

gordo - Is there a 'point' to miss? The question is meant to make you explore possible 'points', not just to accept the arguments at face value.

The fact is, Drug Court programs do give exceptional status to certain criminals. Certainly they satisfy the requirements of the stringent criteria for participation in the program, but nonetheless -exceptionals status. However, I don't entirely agree with your point, Neo. From what I understand, your point was that while children have a degree of lee-way in criminal liability - adults cannot be afforded this lee-way as they are entirely responsible for their actions. The question is: why is drug-addiction not a medical problem but considered as a crime according to our laws?

If medical problems such as mental impairment can be considered defences to a criminal charge (a 'lee-way'), meaning that adults are not -entirely- responsible for their actions if circumstances exist that negate the responsibility for their actions, then why not drug dependency?

 

[gordo]

sorry if u misunderstood me, i said i think you missed the whole point cause neo never actually acknowledge the reason for the existence of the drug court, he (or she) said firstly,

how can you justify allowing rehabilitation for someone that endangers the lives of others by committing driving offences

implying he (or she) can't justify it - therefore missing the point of the drug court

and then he (or she) said

by allowing for rehabilitation you're just giving exceptional status to criminals

the word that stick out like a sore thumb is 'just' - implying ALL the drug court does, is promote inequality among crims - once again not ackowledging the many other significant reasons for the existence of the drug court

thus i failed to see how he (or she) understood what the point of the drug court was


furthermore, after considering the issue we discussed in class about immunity to barristers, to prevent a clogging of the courts and the fact that judge Dive brought up about almost every drug user that didn;t go through the drug court just reoffending (especially since the drug using jail terms are not long) and that since the establishment of the drug court over 130 ppl have been compelely detoxed and been integrated back into society, also, consider that the law and punishment is supposed to act as a detterent from committing the crime, except in a drug users case that just isn't possible cause they are physically and mentally addicted, you have to realise that life in jail or 40 years in jail for murder or rape is a genuine deterrent for someone who has control over their actions... a drug user doesn;t, they are addicted and will keep using unless they are helped. its not providing exceptional status, if u didn;t help them, you are providing all the other criminals with exceptional status because you are giving them a detterent to stop them committing crimes, without the drug court, the drug users have no deterrent....

haha i am starting to formulate an argument, maybe i'll go start my assignment now

 

[neo o]

Too bad you don't go to USYD and thus don't have to do this assignment.

1 semester of foundations is enough for me

If medical problems such as mental impairment can be considered defences to a criminal charge (a 'lee-way'), meaning that adults are not -entirely- responsible for their actions if circumstances exist that negate the responsibility for their actions, then why not drug dependency?

Because adults choose to become drug dependant. Also, consider this (and correct me if I'm wrong), is alcoholism (another form of substance abuse so it's probably a better comparison then say, disease) a defence against drink driving offences? Why do smackies get some luvin'?

 

[Rorix]

a drug user doesn;t, they are addicted and will keep using unless they are helped. its not providing exceptional status, if u didn;t help them, you are providing all the other criminals with exceptional status because you are giving them a detterent to stop them committing crimes, without the drug court, the drug users have no deterrent....

Your argument is flawed because you completely absolve the person in question of any responsibility for the committing of the crime, and put all responsibility on the use of the drug.

 

[gordo]

the drug court recognises that all the users in the program weren't as such, responsible for their drug use as traditional criminals are responsible for their crimes..its exactly what judge dive was talking about, by nature of their upbringings it was inevitable they would end up using drugs, they were born with that path, rather than chosing it. it is completely different to someone who chooses to pretty much break natural law or 'the ten commandments' something that is morally wrong and able to be determined so by the majority of humans who can differentiate between right and wrong. the criminal law basically states that a perpetrator has done something which society forbids people to do because it deems it harmful or immoral - from the natural law point of view of a drug user, are drugs harmful or immoral? i acknowledge that many drug users may as a result of their addiction commit crime to fund this addiction etc, however the fact is, since they are all repeat offenders, a traditioanl court is not offering a detterent from continuin g to reoffend (like i said above)

wat do u think?

 

[Rorix]

the drug court recognises that all the users in the program weren't as such, responsible for their drug use as traditional criminals are responsible for their crimes..its exactly what judge dive was talking about, by nature of their upbringings it was inevitable they would end up using drugs, they were born with that path, rather than chosing it.

Firstly, let's keep in mind that Judge Dive is, by virtue of his position, subject to bias. I find it interesting that he holds the drugs to be soley responsible for the crime, as we can safely assume that his view is the view of the Court. I would dispute that drug use is inevitable because of certain lifestyle factors because you can always find someone who grew up in the same circumstances and yet doesn't have serious drug addictions. Likewise, drug use does not inevitably lead to crime, because plenty of people use drugs without comitting crime (especially with 'lighter' drugs like cannibus - we'd have to lock up most university students if cannibus use led to crime inevitably!). So, while I won't dispute that drug use would tend to get you assosciated with shady characters making a crime based lifestyle more likely, I would dispute that it makes it inevitable.

rest of post

It seems there is a fundamental divide so that we cannot agree. As I outlined above, I hold the individual partially responsible for the crime, whereas you directly link the drug use to the crime.

If the drug use was the sole reason for the crime, then I would agree that Drug Court is 100% the way to go. However, if the individual is at least partially responsible then there should be some restoring of 'good character' if you will, addressing those character flaws which cause the offender to commit crime. I would further argue that by linking the drug use to crime in the minds of the participants of the Drug Court program, they (especially those with diminished mental functioning) will be slightly more likely to reoffend as these character flaws emerge but are held as normal behaviour, since it 'can't be crime because they aren't on drugs'.

 

[PopcornPixie]

Can anyone tell me if point form lists are allowed to be used in the paper?

I just realised it's not an essay that we're being asked to write.

(And thus, am very very happy!)

But yes, any ideas as to the point form?

 

[amyc]

Firstly, let's keep in mind that Judge Dive is, by virtue of his position, subject to bias. I find it interesting that he holds the drugs to be soley responsible for the crime, as we can safely assume that his view is the view of the Court.

It is by the very virtue of his status that places Judge Dive in the best position to comment on the implications of the Drug Court Program. I contend that, as a judge, he is able to apply the best possible balance of impartiality, human understanding of the changing needs of society & fairness, and by that, his view is not one of bias, as such, but of informed judgment. Furthermore, no where during his speech did he explicitly state that drugs are SOLELY responsible for crime. Rather, he addressed other issues of reintegrating the offender back into the community, etc, which to me, indicated his understanding that an offender's "criminal tendencies" may be attributed partially to their social upbringing.

plenty of people use drugs without comitting crime (especially with 'lighter' drugs like cannibus - we'd have to lock up most university students if cannibus use led to crime inevitably!).

You will need to clarify this point. Do you mean to say that drug use would lead to other forms of crime? Technically speaking, the use of drugs is prohibited under the NSW Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, and thus, users of illicit substances are deemed to have already committed at least the crime of possessing an illicit substance. In relations to your cannibus comment, only in South Australia, Western Australia, the Northern territory and the ACT have the Australian jurisdiction decriminalised the possession and cultivation of small quantities of cannibus. So accordingly, the NSW police can lock up those offending uni students whether or not their cannibus-use leads to other crime

The rest I agree with.

 

[gordo]

anyone seen minority report?

they should lock up broke heroine addicts for their future crimes of stealing

btw Amy, i don;t think you coul dhave said that any more formally - 10/10 for law stigma

 

[tanvi]

Wow, the assignment has started such a debate...

PopcornPixie, I personally doubt that we'll be allowed to use point form, as it kinda seems (in my mind) to go against what they'd like to do with this assignment: assess our writing skills. Although I could definitely be wrong, and please tell me if I am...point form would be wonderful for fitting in all I am trying to say.

Also: are we allowed to talk to each other about the main points we're including in our assignments? I don't want to steal your points, but I was just wondering what the main things are that everybody is saying...just to check that I'm not completely off-track.

 

[neo o]

Wow, the assignment has started such a debate...

PopcornPixie, I personally doubt that we'll be allowed to use point form, as it kinda seems (in my mind) to go against what they'd like to do with this assignment: assess our writing skills. Although I could definitely be wrong, and please tell me if I am...point form would be wonderful for fitting in all I am trying to say.

Also: are we allowed to talk to each other about the main points we're including in our assignments? I don't want to steal your points, but I was just wondering what the main things are that everybody is saying...just to check that I'm not completely off-track.

You won't get any marks for saying what everyone else is thinking, so I wouldn't bother asking if I were you.

 

[gordo]

you can't be wrong

the question is totally opionated. give your views and back them up
you'll be fine

you can say the drug court is unfair because its in parramatta and thus creates or emphasises a drug stigma in that area, therefore it is not just..lol i dunno

 

[gordo]

yay, finished my first draft, - gotta cut back on about 600 words now though

i'll tell u wats really stupid
u lose 0.5 of a mark for each 100 words you go over, yet they don;t tell you how many marks the assignment is out of

if its marked out of 30, and u go 400 words over the limit, thus u are restricting yoruself to a maximum mark of 93%

if its marked out of 10 and u go 400 words over then u ahve restricted yourself to a maximum mark of 80%

 

[PopcornPixie]

I woke up at 7 this morning, and all I've been doing all day is cutting. Cutting and re writing. And CUTTING some more.

So now i'm down to 1100 words.

I haven't written a conclusion yet. And since I've been trying to get rid of everything unessesary (guh, spelling), nothing is linked.

:|

Incidentally
How many bloody words does citing take up?

*wonders how much more she has to cut*

There's not much more i can do with mine, unless i get rid of a whole chunk, and that'd probably screw the whole thing up.

eeep.

*starts feeling vaguely panicky*

 

[Komit]

I've only done my introduction.

 

[amyc]

How many bloody words does citing take up?

Everyone should have more or less the same number of words in their footnotes because we've been given the same reading materials -_-

 

[PopcornPixie]

oh my gosh...

i'd written in my diary that the assignment was due on the 21st. So i'd panic and do the work on the weekend.

I did that during the first seminar, and since then, have forgotten about it being .. well... not real.

So i've been frantically stressing tonight. For NO reason.

Absolutely no reason.

Well, now that I've shared my stupidity with you all...


We're all using the materials in the assignment handout, but do we cite them as the Assignment hand out? or as their own individual texts? My seminar teacher said something about citing the assignment, but i have a really short attention span, so i'm a little vague about this. Does anyone know?

(and YAY for the extended deadline)

 

[gordo]

cite them as there texts but use the page numbers from the assignment
and footnotes vary depending on how many times u make reference to the text and thus need a footnote, atm i have 168 words worth of footnotes, which is pretty annoying - if worst comes to worse, although i still have 500 words to cut, then i can just lose some of the refeerences and drop footnotes

 

[Lainee]

I can't believe I still haven't finished the assignment yet (yes, it's due in less than 22 hours). I had a neat little 975 word essay last night and then I decided that I wanted to change my thesis so... here I am, taking the day off uni, probably missing a shitload of work, to rewrite my assignment. I have to keep reminding myself that this is only 10%. Really not proportional to the amount of time I put into it...

 

[gordo]

don't worry about the law seminar today, it was useless