Section I - Multiple Choice (1 Viewer)

[funkygirl59]

it was "can enforce human rights legislation" it doesn't GIVE them human rights because those are universal and inherent in all people by definition. not given by laws. but if they ratify a treaty i.e. the rome statute, then they can enforce human rights e.g. people can be charged with genocide now, or people can be charged with discrimination under the anti-discrimination act 1977 nsw (which ratified like, UDHR or something)


alsoooooo
it's 100% definitely completely 100000000% AGE OF THE VICTIM. There's a list in our textbook for goodness sake. If you raped someone, ok. but if you raped a child, or an old defenseless lady, those are aggravating factors. agg factors to do with offenders include like - no remorse and stuff

 

[Tennisaddict]

My Answers:

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

 

[hobowoman]

Crap... why was Q9 A? I was tossing up between A and D but I put D.

Doubt anyone is going to but it's worth a try..would any one be so kinda as to post the questions as some of use were not allowed to take the paper?

Here:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3 (Q9 is supposed to be A)
Page 4
Page 5

 

[clry]

13 is D, I don't even know why there's confusion over this. The age of the offender is irrelevant. If they don't reach the age of criminal responsibility, there is no mens rea, therefore they aren't held responsible for the crime. However the age of the victim can strongly change the severity of the punishment, thus being a mitigating factor. For example, sexual assault on a minor (under 16) INSTANTLY becomes aggravated sexual assault, whether there is the use or fear of violence or not, solely because the victim is under 16. Therefore it is an aggravating factor.

 

[crazybea]

omg u guys

age of the offender can only be a mitigating factor (if they are under 18)

its definitely age of the victim (if they are under 18 it is an aggravating factor)

now please put that q behind us

what was the answer to the one on what offence Alex committed?
Driving
Property
Public Offence
White Collar

they all seemed wrong
need an explanation

Also
the robbery question.. what would u be charged with?

ive never heard of any1 successfully robbing being charged with two counts of conspiracy + robbery

 

[4025808]

Probably got around 16 for MC there..

 

[Swell11]

I got:
1d
2b
3a
4c
5a
6b
7b
8c
9d <- correct one was a
10c
11c
12a
13d
14b
15c
16d
17a
18c
19a
20b

My teacher went over them afterwards and seemed to think they were all correct, except 9.

 

[crazybea]

what question is 9
what option is a

 

[Swell11]

9. Which of the following human rights is expressly recognised in the Australian Constitution?
A. Freedom of religion
B. freedom of assembly
C. The right to marry
D. The right to education

 

[acemusic415]

Im pretty sure 15 is C

I got C as well because when once they ratify they then have the obligation to establish domestic law. The question about the 'practical effect' of this which is that the Australian Government is enabled to enact human rights legislation.

 

[acemusic415]

9. Which of the following human rights is expressly recognised in the Australian Constitution?
A. Freedom of religion
B. freedom of assembly
C. The right to marry
D. The right to education

Definitely A - freedom of religion - Section 116 of the Constitution.

 

[crazybea]

sweet

 

[Droidster]

Concerning the question pertaining to the parties of the crime, it cannot be Accessory after the fact, as that can only be classified as a option if the person did not know if the crime took place, or was not involved in the crime. The stimulus states that she/he knew about the crime (don't have the questions with me at this time, setting my mic for CoD ). So it def. isn't accessory after the fact, and principle in the first degree. I, for some reason, went with Party to the second degree, as she "assisted" with the plan (yes I know she wasn't involved when the crime took place), so I'm sure its Accessory before the act. I honestly thought it was a tricky question.

I apologise if this has been discussed earlier

 

[Tennisaddict]

I missed 10 in the specimen paper because I thought same thing and put principal in the 2nd degree, but it was accesory after the fact, so I just went with accesory today I hope it's it right, nonetheless I have got any wrong yet Just a few ambiguous ones, ill be stoked with 18

 

[acemusic415]

omg u guys

age of the offender can only be a mitigating factor (if they are under 18)

its definitely age of the victim (if they are under 18 it is an aggravating factor)

now please put that q behind us

what was the answer to the one on what offence Alex committed?
Driving
Property
Public Offence
White Collar

they all seemed wrong
need an explanation

Also
the robbery question.. what would u be charged with?

ive never heard of any1 successfully robbing being charged with two counts of conspiracy + robbery

It would be property - because property involves acts of larceny which is synonymous to robbery.

 

[crazybea]

Concerning the question pertaining to the parties of the crime, it cannot be Accessory after the fact, as that can only be classified as a option if the person did not know if the crime took place, or was not involved in the crime. The stimulus states that she/he knew about the crime (don't have the questions with me at this time, setting my mic for CoD ). So it def. isn't accessory after the fact, and principle in the first degree. I, for some reason, went with Party to the second degree, as she "assisted" with the plan (yes I know she wasn't involved when the crime took place), so I'm sure its Accessory before the act. I honestly thought it was a tricky question.

I apologise if this has been discussed earlier

im sorry but this is wrong

she assisted after the principal offence and not before it

whether she had knowledge of it beforehand is another story as her knowledge of it did not assist in the act directly

 

[crazybea]

It would be property - because property involves acts of larceny which is synonymous to robbery.

hmm but he didnt rob directly

he drove the car

idk ur probably right

its definitely not white collar (which is what i put) :'(

what is the robbery question? whats the answer?

i did robbery (d)

 

[Urgh]

My very first question is, why is everyone referring to Shane from question 5 as a girl? Shane is a boy's name and there is no use of any pronoun :S. Second I reckon it's after the fact because they explicitly state the fact that Alex and Dale plan. Shane waiting for them can mean anything.

I think 19 should be reviewed cause that's vague as shit... it doesn't say the "most likely" response or "required" or anything. It asks what do they have the power to do and they can do any fuckin one of them.

Also I reckon 15 is c because ratification is the act of actually enacting it through domestic legislation.

Just some thoughts :3

 

[crazybea]

My very first question is, why is everyone referring to Shane from question 5 as a girl? Shane is a boy's name and there is no use of any pronoun :S. Second I reckon it's after the fact because they explicitly state the fact that Alex and Dale plan. Shane waiting for them can mean anything.

I think 19 should be reviewed cause that's vague as shit... it doesn't say the "most likely" response or "required" or anything. It asks what do they have the power to do and they can do any fuckin one of them.

Also I reckon 15 is c because ratification is the act of actually enacting it through domestic legislation.

Just some thoughts :3

agree with all

and i sold my verity to everyone calling shane a her

(i thought i misread shannon for shane)

lawl

what was the robbery answer?

 

[Droidster]

Note: Soz, I wrote a reply but I don't think it processed. Argh, lol.

Anyways, concerning with the Shane question, the reason why I personally believed that it cannot be Accessory after the Act, is because for the individual to fall under this criteria, they must not be present during the criminal act and must not be aware of its occurrence. The fact that the stimulus gave the impression that she knew about the crime taking place (I left my question crap in the car, dont hate me ), therefore it cannot be after the fact.

So it would have to be (IMO) accessory before the fact (even though I went for the second most idiotic answer available >_>)

But who knows, I could possibly be wrong.