Bucket Duty-Based Ethical Case Summary

A seemingly uncorrelated death of a child becomes an attack on two businesses that brought forth unwanted attention. It reveals how corporations can truly neglect their surroundings and the safety of citizens without remorse. In the quaint town of Woburn, Massachusetts, the death of Anne Anderson’s son due to leukemia quickly transformed from a personal tragedy to an extensive lawsuit. Anne Anderson approached Jan Schlichtmann, a personal injury lawyer, to tackle the case. From the beginning, Anne makes it clear that she does not want money, she simply wants an apology. At first, Jan rejects the case because he does not see money being made from the case. However, after a fateful encounter with a police due to speeding, Jan had the chance to scan the environment which promptly changed his mind

Hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

You 're accused of a crime you know you didn 't commit, how would you feel if when you went to court you didn 't get to have a jury to have a better chance of the verdict siding with you, and not get accused of a crime. The judge immediately decides your guilty and you 're put on probation , faced with charges you don 't have the money to pay ,or even get sent to jail. “ The jury system arose in England hundreds of years ago. If there was a crime committed in the community, the accused was brought to a jury. 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

Anthony Zurcher, an editor for “Echo Chamber” published in BBCNews, wrote the article “Affluenza Defense: Rich Privileged, and Unaccountable” in response to a Texas judge’s ruling on a controversial case. This case was about a 16-year-old boy, Ethan Couch, who drove with a “blood-alcohol level three times above the legal limit” (283), lost control of his pick-up truck and killed four pedestrians. Couch’s lawyers argued that he lacked a sense of responsibility because of his absent, wealthy parents and the lavish lifestyle he lived. This argument led the judge to sentence Couch to a drug rehabilitation center, paid for by his parents, and 10 years probation. There are many other cases similar to Couch’s where the perpetrator would receive a

Judges in the state of Nevada ascend to their positions through an election by the citizens of Nevada. “In 2007 and 2009, the legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment calling for merit selection of Nevada judges.”(JudicialSelection.US) The Merit plan, is a system of appointing judges through bipartisan commissions who forward the lists of shortlisted candidates to the appointing authority to pick from the list. This is followed by periodic votes by the electorate to determine whether these judges will be retained. The Merit plan, or Missouri plan, has its origins in the state of Missouri in 1940.The two systems of selecting judges both have their strengths and weaknesses.

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.

America gives any defendant a trial by judge, unless the judge allows a trial by jury. There are certain cases that need a better balance between a guilty verdict and the defendant’s freedom. Murder trials often receive 12 jurors to decide the defendant’s fate, while civil cases often have a judge making the verdict. The issue lies in citizens because they are unaware of the seriousness that presides in choosing another human’s future. Judges should be the only decision makers to choose a verdict which gives a defendant a fair trial in how they will use fact over feeling, they will be focused on deciding the verdict, and they are aware of the moral issues that may come out in a case.

The level of influence a time period has on a country is defined by its political, economic, and social change. The 1920s was one of the most influential decades in the history of the United States. Corrupt politicians, tax cuts for the rich and new opportunities for women signify the influence of the Roaring 20s.

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. Through the trial she shows how the caste system impacts the outcome of trial.

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

The Brock Turner case is a very controversial case that spark debate on the subject of white male privilege and the abuse of power. People speculate that the only reason Turner received such a minimal sentence is because his parents are affluent and influential, due to their success and status as a white professional. He was found guilty and the judge gave him a very lenient sentence. Many people saw this as unfair to the girl that was raped and to everyone else impacted by this man 's crime. The judge 's name is Aaron Persky. He has requested to be moved from criminal to civil court, subsequent to the scrutiny and attention he received from the Turner ruling. An organization called “Recall Judge Persky” are requesting 80,000 signatures so

The play “Twelve Angry Men” shows that relying on twelve people for a life sentencing situation could be bad for the justice system. The justice system could be bad in at least three ways by people being biased, fighting for the wrong side, and people having no common sense.

Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative.

Planning is transforming socially, but to achieve change it has to bring together, politicians, planners, and residents (Sandercock, 2004). Citizen’s opinions and rights should be taken into consideration. It is the number one rule in the planning process for participants. It says, “recognize the rights of citizens to participate in planning decisions” (Ethical, n.d.). Cities cannot progress unless they change their ways of doing things. To find out how a city is actually doing it has to see itself from an outside prospective. They will most of the time see that what they though was normal is actually something they grew accustomed to. A way that can lead to planners being progressive is to use a therapeutic approach. This approach involves “the “whole person” to be present in negotiations and deliberations, but being prepared to acknowledge and deal with the powerful emotions that underpin many planning issues” (Sandercock, 2004).

Bribery is defined on the dictionary as offering, giving, or receiving of a bribe, which means giving or receiving of something of value in exchange of specific favorable outcome that it may not occur if it weren’t for the bribe. “Bribery law consists of the criminal rules for dealing with people who attempt to buy influence with public officials and other decision-makers.” (Bribery and Corruption Law). The crime of bribery covers a broad scope of wrongful conduct, for instances, bribes of cash, favors, assets, services, or anything else of value, whether delivered presently or in the future. Bribes can occur directly, or indirectly through third parties in order to disguise the transaction. Even the transaction is not completed, or just offering