Multiple choice answers (confirmed) (1 Viewer)

[wogboy23]

1)d
2)b
3)a
4)c
5)a
6)b
7)b
8)c
9)a
10)c
11)c
12)a
13)d
14)b
15) b
16)d
17)a
18)c
19)a
20)b

 

[acemusic415]

How can you be sure?

 

[wogboy23]

How can you be sure?

Variety of sources/textbook/research/teacher confirmation
Although for q 15, still having debate over b and c (ratification crap)

 

[Tennisaddict]

I don't think we can have a confirmed set of answers, some are too ambiguous, I think 15 and 19 are both d.

 

[wogboy23]

I don't think we can have a confirmed set of answers, some are too ambiguous, I think 15 and 19 are both d.

19 can't be de - police have the ability to arrest someone if they believe on "reasonable grounds" that they have committed or about to commit a crime - i.e. basically nothing can be done without an arrest
15 can't be D - courts like the ICJ just require you to be a signatory nation to their court (member state) - i.e. has nothing to do with the actual ratification of international human rights treaty - my logic is B - the ratification process has already been conducted (fed parliament domestically enacting alw) thus this makes human rights punishable in Australia. Seems most logical to me but people disagree :l

 

[funkygirl59]

1)d
2)b
3)a
4)c
5)a
6)b
7)b
8)c
9)a
10)c
11)c
12)a
13)d
14)b
15) b
16)d
17)a
18)c
19)a
20)b

100% agree with these answers and your explanations

made two STUPID mistakes though so 18/20.
I didn't read that those two guys were of different ages so i said heard by judge and jury instead of different quotes (the young guy would obviously be in childrens court with a magistrate garrr!)

and then the sex offenders one: i put domestic law, went back and checked, put transnational cos i felt i had overanalysed it. brrrr

but apart from that

 

[wogboy23]

100% agree with these answers and your explanations

made two STUPID mistakes though so 18/20.
I didn't read that those two guys were of different ages so i said heard by judge and jury instead of different quotes (the young guy would obviously be in childrens court with a magistrate garrr!)

and then the sex offenders one: i put domestic law, went back and checked, put transnational cos i felt i had overanalysed it. brrrr

but apart from that

Thanks! Does that mean for q 15 you also belive B?
We are in a similar boat in terms of stupid mistakes - I too put judge and jury without taking into proper consideration their ages
I had transnational law then changed to Australian domestic law thank god
My second mistake is the Victim Impact Statement (I knew they could be used at sentencing)
If question 15 is correct, I too got 18/20 LOL

 

[isenseven]

Hoping those are correct for a 19/20

 

[wogboy23]

Hoping those are correct for a 19/20

lol which one did you get wrong?
q 15 is apparently still debatable

 

[rayy_bann]

Everyone is so smart getting 18-19. Multiple choice was the downfall of my exam.... In reference to this I only got 15, possibly 16. I know the rest of the exam are likely to save me from the mc. I'm hoping I can get that 16

 

[funkygirl59]

Thanks! Does that mean for q 15 you also belive B?
We are in a similar boat in terms of stupid mistakes - I too put judge and jury without taking into proper consideration their ages
I had transnational law then changed to Australian domestic law thank god
My second mistake is the Victim Impact Statement (I knew they could be used at sentencing)
If question 15 is correct, I too got 18/20 LOL

yeah 15 has to be b.

In Australia ratification means we have SIGNED and INCORPORATED INTO DOMESTIC LAW. That's why signing and ratifying are separate things.

it can't be a (human rights are universal, inalienable etc. so it's not like ratifying a treat gives people human rights)

can't remember the other answers but the one that was like 'it gives the government the power to legislate on human rights' is clearly wrong because 1. they don't need to sign a treaty to legislate on human rights and 2. ratifying means they already have legislated on human rights

so basically it's b - makes it punishable/enforceable in aus.
E.g. if we only sign a treaty on human rights we can't punish people in aus. for going against those rights. but if we ratify it i.e. make it illegal and say people can go to court/anti discrimination board then that makes it punishable.

long-winded explanation
but that's why i think we're right