Discussion posts are designed to encourage students to stay abreast on current issues or dive deeper into topics beyond class lectures. Posts should include a brief 3 paragraph essay. It could be an in-depth analysis from an interesting journal article or relevant news article related to neuroscience. Quality and relevance of discussion also will be evaluated. Each post will be graded with the following criteria (20 points possible for each post): 3 points total possible: Student’s post was relevant to the class. 5 points total possible: Student’s writing was clear and to the point, and kept spelling and grammatical errors to a minimum (i.e., 1-2 misspelling errors per post). 12 points total possible: Student provided clear description of a relevant article or on a topic discussed in class. The post included thoughtful and scientific discussions that helped further the understanding on the subject. Must use topics related to neouropsychology.

Argue for OR against changing section 273 – Acceleration of death or euthanasia (Western Australian Criminal Code Act 1913) The Criminal Code 1913 (WA) outlines the offences and frameworks of criminal responsibility for the Western Australian public. Though the Code addresses offences against the person, property, the administration of justice and so on, there are also areas that fall outside the scope of the Code. In addition, the wording and meaning of the Code’s language is not always clear and is open to interpretation by judges. For this assessment you are to argue why you would keep a particular provision in the Code for example, s 246 must not amended because people have a right to defend themselves and because it serves the community’s needs well. You will need to do research to include evidence to support your position. Conversely, you may come across a provision in the Code that you object to. You need to do some research as to why you would improve or alter the provision of the Code. A minimum of 20 references must be used, 15 of which must be from peer reviewed sources such as journal articles, books, legislation, case law and media reports. Structure: Key Area 1 – Provide a considered general introduction. Provide a creative title. Include a clear statement as to your position at the end of the first paragraph. Key Area 2 – Develop an argument and justification for your position based on recent media dialogues and/or topical issues within the community Key Area 3 – Draw on research from criminology, psychology, sociology or other disciplines to inform and support your position Key Area 4 – Demonstrate a level of critical thought. (Critically argued how your position better meets the needs and requirements of the community / legal system) Key Area 5 – Use research by others to support your position Key Area 6 – Provide a considered conclusion.