We hear about law everyday whether we realize it or not. It's in our Government, in our work, and even in our houses. One type of law is Criminal law, which is also known as Penal law. This is "The body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses."
Inside of criminal law there is four major theories of criminal justice:
- Punishment
- Deterrence
- Incapacitation
- Rehabilitation
This form of law is essential in many cases because it can distinguis between crimes from civil wrongs. Criminal law has been around for ages, and is seeing as the fundamental system of regulating the behavior of individuals and groups relatively to what is defined as the social norms. This differs between civil crimes, where the difference is between two individuals and their individual rights and obligations under the law which is ruling the entire society.
An example of a civil law case is a dispute between two individuals over a contract that they made to for example sell an automobile. In that case one individual feels that their individual rights for a fair automobile sale have been breached by the other party. Where as in a criminal case, you would have for example a murderer, who is infringing on the right of safety that we all have. Given those two examples I'm sure you can appreciate how important Criminal law is, and the important role that it plays in everyone of our societies.
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Labels:
Ethics
Professional Ethics
There are many professions in the world that require strong will, stamina and courage to get occupied. Thousands of policemen, doctors, firemen, rescue teams save people every minute. Graduating form the University and mastering one of the professions mentioned above you think only about successful application of your knowledge in practice. A couple of years after you become a famous doctor, an honorary resident and a dedicated family man. But then one accident in your practice turns your life upside down and makes you reconsider your system of values and personal code of ethics.
Racing towards the hospital in the middle of the night, you think about what you are going to see. Entering a room, you see one of your patients lying down with eyes closed. A sense of guilt overwhelms you, when you hear colleagues' words "No hope". The situation drove you to the choice you need to make: either to shut down the apparatus of support and release a patient from suffering on his way to death or do nothing in order to save good name you acquired during your practice. Leaving the room, you start going back to your student years where the problem of euthanasia was discussed frequently. What was your attitude? Of course you thought of this way out as of unacceptable an inhumane as most of people think. Did you really give a problem a good thought being a student? Obviously it never occurred to you that you may appear in front of a choice like that. And now, having a reputation of a professional, what are you to choose?
Euthanasia is determined as an act of merciful killing that releases a person from suffering. Now this term has to be specified, because the specialists of Middle Ages released their patients not only form physical but also from spiritual sufferings. Nowadays obligations of doctors are limited by law and in some states euthanasia is prohibited by law, unless one of he family members presents a request that is further investigated. There are several moral aspects of such a decision. On one hand there are Ten Commandments of the Holy Bible, one of which states "Do not kill". After humanism was established as a philosophical current, some consider euthanasia a crime. On the other hand there are words of Hippocrates that pleads to help the needy regardless their position in the society. If nothing but sufferings awaits a person on a short way to death, why should a doctor who understands the situation let someone be tortured? Isn't it even crueler than killing somebody? These are moral aspects of the problem, but the code of professional ethics requires action and you are to make the choice. Only after you consider everything and make the right decision you deserve to be called a professional and be respected even more.
Racing towards the hospital in the middle of the night, you think about what you are going to see. Entering a room, you see one of your patients lying down with eyes closed. A sense of guilt overwhelms you, when you hear colleagues' words "No hope". The situation drove you to the choice you need to make: either to shut down the apparatus of support and release a patient from suffering on his way to death or do nothing in order to save good name you acquired during your practice. Leaving the room, you start going back to your student years where the problem of euthanasia was discussed frequently. What was your attitude? Of course you thought of this way out as of unacceptable an inhumane as most of people think. Did you really give a problem a good thought being a student? Obviously it never occurred to you that you may appear in front of a choice like that. And now, having a reputation of a professional, what are you to choose?
Euthanasia is determined as an act of merciful killing that releases a person from suffering. Now this term has to be specified, because the specialists of Middle Ages released their patients not only form physical but also from spiritual sufferings. Nowadays obligations of doctors are limited by law and in some states euthanasia is prohibited by law, unless one of he family members presents a request that is further investigated. There are several moral aspects of such a decision. On one hand there are Ten Commandments of the Holy Bible, one of which states "Do not kill". After humanism was established as a philosophical current, some consider euthanasia a crime. On the other hand there are words of Hippocrates that pleads to help the needy regardless their position in the society. If nothing but sufferings awaits a person on a short way to death, why should a doctor who understands the situation let someone be tortured? Isn't it even crueler than killing somebody? These are moral aspects of the problem, but the code of professional ethics requires action and you are to make the choice. Only after you consider everything and make the right decision you deserve to be called a professional and be respected even more.
Labels:
Ethics
Corporate Crime
Corporate crime? I'm not sure that there is such a thing. If we want to reduce the crimes that are given that lable, we need to quit handing out large punitive fines to corporations. The idea isn't as radical as it sounds.
First of all, when I say that there isn't such a thing as corporate crime, I simply mean that it is always individual people who commit crimes. With that in mind, you can imagine what my better way to reduce this crime is: Go after the criminals!
Who Pays For Corporate Crime?
Exactly who pays when a large corporation is fined for breaking the law? To begin with, the stockholders pay. Many of these are innocent retirees who have money invested with the company and had no idea they were breaking the law. Then the employees pay with the loss of jobs, if the financial situation of the company is damaged by the fines. Who doesn't pay? Just the criminals - the individuals who chose to break the law.
All crimes are committed by PEOPLE, not companies. When a company dumps poisons into the environment, a PERSON made the decision to do that (or several people). When a company steals from a pension fund or violates workers rights, INDIVIDUALS made those decisions. People commit corporate crime, not corporations!
If you want to stop corporate crime, start putting the individuals who are involved in the crime in PRISON. Our current system often has company officers making cost/benefit calculations as to whether the profits from certain crimes are greater than what the occasional fines add up to. Even though laws are broken, they stand little chance of being held personally responsible. Why not hold them responsible?
To fine companies for the actual costs imposed on others by a crime is appropriate. We have to clean up toxic messes, and in other cases compensate those who suffer damages. This also means that shareholders have a reason to be careful in who they elect to the board of directors. However, "punitive" fines are ridiculous unless they are levied against the individual criminals. Make the person who committed the crime pay the fine.
Is this such a radical idea? I don't think so! By the way, which do you think is more likely to deter a corporate officer from committing a crime, a fine that is paid by the company, and doesn't even affect his salary, or ten years in jail? The answer to that gives us the answer to corporate crime.
First of all, when I say that there isn't such a thing as corporate crime, I simply mean that it is always individual people who commit crimes. With that in mind, you can imagine what my better way to reduce this crime is: Go after the criminals!
Who Pays For Corporate Crime?
Exactly who pays when a large corporation is fined for breaking the law? To begin with, the stockholders pay. Many of these are innocent retirees who have money invested with the company and had no idea they were breaking the law. Then the employees pay with the loss of jobs, if the financial situation of the company is damaged by the fines. Who doesn't pay? Just the criminals - the individuals who chose to break the law.
All crimes are committed by PEOPLE, not companies. When a company dumps poisons into the environment, a PERSON made the decision to do that (or several people). When a company steals from a pension fund or violates workers rights, INDIVIDUALS made those decisions. People commit corporate crime, not corporations!
If you want to stop corporate crime, start putting the individuals who are involved in the crime in PRISON. Our current system often has company officers making cost/benefit calculations as to whether the profits from certain crimes are greater than what the occasional fines add up to. Even though laws are broken, they stand little chance of being held personally responsible. Why not hold them responsible?
To fine companies for the actual costs imposed on others by a crime is appropriate. We have to clean up toxic messes, and in other cases compensate those who suffer damages. This also means that shareholders have a reason to be careful in who they elect to the board of directors. However, "punitive" fines are ridiculous unless they are levied against the individual criminals. Make the person who committed the crime pay the fine.
Is this such a radical idea? I don't think so! By the way, which do you think is more likely to deter a corporate officer from committing a crime, a fine that is paid by the company, and doesn't even affect his salary, or ten years in jail? The answer to that gives us the answer to corporate crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
