If Mr. Bucket, the attorney, used duty-based ethics he would not bride the judge in order to win the case for his client. Under the religious ethical standard he would not pay the judge off because even though the act may seem fair the act is not justifiable and is immoral. This would be just like Robin Hood who is still seen as a theif eventhough he was redistrubution the wealth to those who needed it more. Furthermore, Bucket would also say no because of kantian ethics. To use this form of ethics one must ask, if everyone bribed the judge to win their case how would it affect our justice system? There would be no true value of justice just like if everyone cheated on their test their would be no value in a degree. Lastly, under the principle of rights Bucket would not bribe the judge because bribes are contrary to the natural desire for justice. It would impend on the judges decision to make an ethical decision and affect other attorneys who come into contact with this judge Under outcome-based ethics Mr. Bucket would bribe the judge, however. The bribe would essentially hold the corportation responsible for all the victims it negligently injuried. Without the bribe there would be no consequences for the corportation, but under the utlitarian theory one must decide the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Requiring …show more content…
The corportation has a duty to be accountable for their actions and how they affect their customers. Under the stakeholders approach they should have evalutated their decisions not to fix the axle problem and the effects it woud have it left unfixed. Since they knew the axle was a problem the negliget their customers. Furthermore, under the corportate citizen approach the corportation should have used their wealth and power to benefit society, not harm it. The least they could do after causing damages would be to compensate for
Eventually, Skinner decides to ask the jury three questions that will determine the outcome of the trial. It has been ultimately decided that Beatrice Foods is not guilty. On the other hand, Jan is forced to take 8 million dollars from Grace, which barely covers for the expenses Jan and his team had sacrificed for the trial. In the end, it is evident that the money the affected families were reimbursed with was largely due to the differing natures of lawyers and judges that took part in the
Judges act as though they are Zeus or above every other person. Our justice system is impartial at times and we forget what truly matter. In a formal petition in the case of Katherine v Mcknamara, Kinsella “Have you ever stopped to consider that public defenders (the poor man’s lawyer) don’t investigate anything?
I would think that the situation wouldn’t have affected him in any way, but even he had to confront the ending result of the verdict. Never expected his life would have change drastically after getting out of the courtroom, and had affected him the way it did to him and his family. There was no regret to his decision, “it’s not fair to say I would have voted a different way. I wouldn’t have-that’s not our justice” (Deavere Smith pg70). His job was to give a verdict based on justice system, but never thought the impact and anger it was going to cause the mob inside in the courtroom and the mob outside.
A jury is not trained to decide someone’s fate, which is why a judge, as a trained lawyer, should choose the
I choose this case because judicial bias is an awful thing and no judge should be biased. In January 2015 a prior student at West Chester University in Pennsylvania was found guilty of rape and was sentenced to six years in prison. This person was charged six years of prison while Turner was sentenced to six months in jail. They both were found guilty and yet the other person had six times the sentence Turner got. It should not matter if the person is rich or poor, very influential in the community or not, you always need to judge a case by the evidence that is shown.
The judge presided over the trial and served as a legal expert… The jury heard the events and accused guilty or not-guilty (Is The American Jury System Still A Good Idea?). ” Jury trials should remain an option because because we as Americans have the right of the seventh , jurors are only told 100 percent of proven information, and the jurors are not influenced by media, people, or unproven information to make a decision and the
This is an interesting question to pose because Zurcher can see the inequality in the justice system, especially when it came to the case of Ethan Couch. Rather than allowing this teenage boy to take responsibility for his actions, money ultimately made the decision for him. Couch did wrong by drinking and driving and did even worse when he killed four people. Time and time again, it is shown that those who have money oftentimes come out of the courtroom with better news than those who are not as financially secure. If someone has money, they will be able to pay for the best lawyers out there.
The Judge forcing people to lie to save their lives he can’t see the wrong he’s doing
People have always been cheated out of what they deserve in one form or another. The court of justice should be a place where it does not matter the ranking people have. The court of justice is a place where only the facts and what can be proven determines the outcome of the trial not the ranking. Sadly this is not how it is during 1935 when people were classified and ranked because of their skin color. Harper Lee demonstrates this in the book To Kill a Mockingbird during a trial between a black man and a white man.
Corruption occurs in a government when politicians are bought out by private companies. These companies would pay the politicians large sums of money and in return, the politicians would do political favors for the companies. According
Aaron Persky, the judge in charge Brock Allen Turner’s rape case, should receive the consequences for giving the perpetrator a lenient sentence that was viewed as unfavorable to the public eye; but rather than have him forcefully removed, the judge should resign as a prosecutor for making a decision unworthy of a prosecutor. Instead of immediately losing his job for an unfair verdict, other factors should contribute to the severity of his punishment. However, it would be more favorable for Persky to relinquish his position as a judge than have his job taken away from him. It is shown through Turner’s case that Persky is likely to be an unqualified judge because his sentence for Turner was unbefitting of a legal prosecutor. His actions had caused
This especially true for cases where citizens have elected the most moneyed judge rather than the most qualified
When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.
This is not the ethical thing to do but it continues to happen today. The elected officials are supposed to look out for the greater good up the people but in the end they only look out for their self-interest. Many of these officials get paid a lot more by doing certain favors for businesses than the salary they earn from the government. This is highly evident in Socialist states where only a select few have power in the economy. Many of these high ranking officials come into power by doing favors such as passing bills or legislation.
This may cause a judge to render a decision based on obligation instead of holding true to their beliefs. This pressure is not easily felt as intensely by appointed judges, especially those with lengthy terms. In considering the equity of the pros and cons it is my opinion that the existing system in place works best. Every system is flawed.