anotherlongshot (anotherlongshot) wrote,
anotherlongshot
anotherlongshot

the irony of homicide.

Thank goodness for MH (who, by the way, is my Criminal Law lecturer if you haven't already connected the dots).

The paper was all essay questions, no dreadful hypotheticals. It was a four-categories-choose-three, the last one being a single question that basically asked you to identify what you thought was the most controversial area of criminal law, explain your choice and explain how you would attempt to rectify it.

For someone who didn't study two parts out of all three parts of the module in great depth, if at all, that last question was seriously a life-saver. There was also one question solely on Section 300(c) of the Penal Code, which I bitched about in an earlier entry, so obviously I went with that. The downside, though, is that it's probably the easiest question in the whole paper which means there'd be a lot of people doing it, which means the quality of the answers has to be really good, which means my generic answer sucked. And my answer filled up one booklet (which is about ten pages but my answer was double-spaced and my handwriting is huge and ugly) but I think about 50% of it was repeating the question, repeating what was said in the extract from Virsa Singh, and reciting facts of cases.

WHICH IS DAMN STUPID now that I think of it. I also cited cases that used a subjective interpretation but didn't really say why I wrote that chunk of crap. If it were a GP essay or a Lit essay, the marker would probably write "what's your point?" at the end of it. And yeah, what was my point anyway? Talk about a waste of time.

For that free-response question I wrote about criminal negligence, which, incidentally, I also bitched about in an entry before. I was, like, so relieved when I saw that question. I was reading the Part 3 questions - about attempts and, like, joint liability or something similar - and NOTHING registered at all. And like I said last night, I stopped trying to write notes for the remaining modules which fall under Part 3 and what do you know, Abetment (which I gave up on after 1 page on MS Word and after seeing I still had 60-something slides left to scan through) and...I think Common Intention came out. I saw the questions and instantly went Oh Shit and began panicking, but then I read Question 4 and relief came flooding down on me like bloody water on the Sahara desert.

I'm just glad I studied Homicide.

On a less positive note, for Question 2 I was forced to "choose" between Provocation (huh?), Sudden Fight and Intoxication. Now, I read quite in detail the pages on Intoxication for the lecture, but the lecture was also ten million years ago and since then I've forgotten everything I read and highlighted and noted. And Provocation...um, what's that? Sudden Fight isn't much of a choice either 'cause I only did it because the other two questions had hypothetical amendments to the present provisions and I was supposed to assess them and I was trying to read them but I couldn't bloody understand what they meant because I took too long for my 300(c) answer and was running out of time. Hence, Sudden Fight. And what really sucks is that the only thing I know about Exception 4 is that the courts use it to mop up deserving cases that do not qualify for the defences of private defence and provocation. So yeah, my answer was 4 pages (double-spaced and humongous handwriting) and half was it - literally half of it - was spent copying down the facts of Soosay v. PP and Roshdi v. PP from my notes.

Um, yeah. That really, really, REALLY sucked.

Actually, my criminal negligence question sucked too. I hardly talked about what I'd do to rectify it, save for one sentence in my conclusion that went something like, "In conclusion, criminal negligence should cease to exist because..." It was nowhere near as good as I'd like it to be. Exams are funny, you know. It's like, I know the things I want to talk about, but I don't know how to structure my answer effectively and because of that I spent a lot of time pondering over what I should write first, what should follow, shit like that, a structure that'd make the most impact.

Argh. Does a law school exam answer care about structure? I don't think so.

I'm so gonna get a C.

And now I have to attempt to study for Contract. The mere thought is enough to induce in me an urge to kill myself.

Hmm. I checked my NUS email a while back and they lowered the Math requirement for the Law/Econs double degree programme. Have I mentioned this before? I tried applying to it but the Math requirement was an A at A Levels and I had a C. Now apparently they just need a fucking PASS.

Okay, whatever. Doesn't matter anyway; I may not even stay in law school. Besides, I have forgotten everything related to Economics, even the very basic stuff, even things like monetary policy and fiscal policy and exchange rates which I used to be relatively good at; and I'm also not exactly doing very well right now; and of course, my Maths sucks a staggering amount of ass so me doing Economics...is a very, very stupid idea.

I know I can't do it but it's just the PRINCIPLE of things that gets to me, the voice muttering at the back of my head that asks incessantly, How would things be now if...?

Look, Voice, it doesn't matter. Why do you look back when there's nothing you can do to change things? Don't be stupid.

Anyway.

I submitted my application for the Warwick international office scholarship. I wrote my 150-word paragrah in about 5 minutes, using very bad English to say that I love writing. Right. I mean, the only part I really liked was the end when I was talking about biculturism (which isn't a word according to MS Word but screw that) and how to find a way to straddle both the East and the West without falling into the no man's land between the two. That sentence was about as figurative as I got for the whole thing.

I mean yeah hello it's 150 words. There's nothing much you can say in 150 words. And I had nothing to say anyway.

I can't write anything anymore and it's severely bothering me.

I'm watching VM tonight and I'm SO excited. Ah, the little joys of life. Sometimes they manage to block out all the shit that blows up in your face. And because such instances are as rare as they come, sometimes, too, you just gotta take the good with the bad.

For me, that means putting off thinking about and dealing with the bad by indulging in the good.

Do you know that the word 'indulging' carries with it negative connotations, just like 'sentimental'? There you go.
Tags: angst, exams, law school, veronica mars
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments