Photo AI
'Parliament is a very effective law-maker - VCE - SSCE Legal Studies - Question 13 - 2006 - Paper 1
Question 13
'Parliament is a very effective law-maker. There are no significant weaknesses in the way parliament carries out this role.' Discuss this statement and indicate the ... show full transcript
Worked Solution & Example Answer:'Parliament is a very effective law-maker - VCE - SSCE Legal Studies - Question 13 - 2006 - Paper 1
Step 1
'Parliament is a very effective law-maker. There are no significant weaknesses in the way parliament carries out this role.'
Answer
To assess the effectiveness of Parliament as a law-maker, we first need to consider its functions and responsibilities. Parliament plays a crucial role in the legislative process, which includes the formulation, amendment, and repealing of laws. One key strength of Parliament is its democratic foundation, providing representation for different constituencies, which enhances the legitimacy of its laws.
However, it is important to recognize that Parliament is not devoid of weaknesses. Critiques often highlight issues such as political party influence, where laws may serve partisan interests rather than the public good. Additionally, the legislative process can be slow, with bills facing numerous hurdles and debates, which may hinder timely law-making. Furthermore, there can be a lack of adequately informed debate on complex issues, leading to poorly crafted legislation.
In conclusion, while Parliament holds significant strengths as a law-maker, its effectiveness is tempered by notable weaknesses, suggesting a nuanced view on its law-making role.
Step 2
'Our adversary system of trial works very well. It cannot be improved.'
Answer
The adversary system of trial, which promotes a contest between opposing parties, has been praised for ensuring thorough examination of evidence and providing a platform for the rights of individuals to be defended. This system strengthens transparency and accountability within the judicial process, as both parties are incentivized to present their cases as comprehensively as possible.
Despite its merits, stating that the adversary system cannot be improved is a contentious viewpoint. Critics argue that it can lead to an imbalance where the quality of justice may depend disproportionately on the resources available to each party. For instance, wealthier defendants can afford better legal representation, potentially skewing outcomes. Additionally, this system may contribute to overly combative courtroom environments, which might detract from the pursuit of truth.
In conclusion, while the adversary system has substantial strengths, it is essential to consider the potential for improvement to ensure greater equity and efficacy in legal proceedings.