Abstract In this article, the writer notes that most managers live by a personal code of conduct that includes certain principles about integrity, regard for others, and keeping commitments. Most also believe they are ethical and that is precisely why, when confronted with situations that they believe compel them to bend company rules, they are decidedly torn. The rule bending discussed in this paper refers to situations where the rules may well need to be challenged, where the act does not break the law, and where there may be a greater good accomplished by doing so. The writer discusses that there are three themes that outline these demands of rule bending; performance-based judgment calls, faulty rules, and socially embedded norms. The writer concludes that executives have bent and will continue to bend company policies and rules when they feel justified. Further, the writer points out that their actions will also continue to be tempered by the downside of doing so, making those who are reluctant at risks less likely to take such actions even when the rules may deserve to be challenged. This paper includes a copy of powerpoint presentation on this subject.
Outline:
Performance-Based Judgment Calls
Faulty Rules Socially Embedded Norms
Bending Rules for the Greater Good
Does Rule Bending Pay?
Conclusion
References
Appendix: PowerPoint Presentation
From the Paper "Most also believe they are ethical and that is precisely why, when confronted with situations that they believe compel them to bend company rules, they are decidedly torn. While playing by the rules is the principled thing to do, and many would say the safest too, many managers also feel a responsibility to challenge the rules, because the rules are not always perfect, and fairness to other parties may demand nothing less. Making rules for proper ethical behavior may be step one in ensuring ethical conduct. But if people disregard or break the rules, then the organizational effort to establish a corporate ethic is weakened. As Enron and other more recent corporate ethical meltdowns have shown, rules alone are not sufficient to ensure ethical behavior across the organization. We are not talking about illegal acts."
Abstract This paper discusses what rules are and why they are made. It will also explain some of the personal rules and will exemplify what a world without rules would be like.
Abstract This paper discusses Dworkin's argument that secondary rules cannot be social rules, because they are not applied uniformly. He believes that they must be normative rules which have an underlying morality as their basis. It also looks at hoe Coleman argues that they are social rules and that the conventions of the U.S. legal system give judges the right to fine-tune laws to meet the convergent beliefs of society.
From the Paper "In the U S Ronald Dworkin and Jules Coleman over the course of thirty years engaged in a debate about the source of the power of secondary rules. Dworkin argues that these cannot be social rules which exist because....."
Abstract This paper examines the effect of British imperial policy on home rule for Ireland. It analyzes the Home Rule question in 1886 and the broader issue of the structure and character of the British Empire. The paper explores dissension and conflict on the issue. It explains how the Irish form of government is modeled on the British parliamentary system. The author offers background of the formation of the British Empire and England's resistance to home rule for Ireland.
Abstract This paper argues that issues other than legal rules often determine how cases are decided. It offers advance arguments to support this thesis. Counter arguments will be considered such as the formalist point of view of Roscoe Pound. However it will be shown that in fact issues such as whether the country is at war, or what race the defendant is, or what best serves the need to protect society are very likely to be more important than the rules in determining how cases are decided.
From the Paper "The American Legal Realism perspective stipulates that issues other than legal rules often determine how cases are decided. This paper will argue that this is true, and will advance arguments to support this thesis. Counter-arguments will be considered, such as the formalist point of view of Roscoe Pound. However, it will be shown that in fact issues such as whether the country is at war, or what race the defendant is, or what best serves the need to protect society, are very likely to be more important than the rules in determining how cases are decided. In other words, pragmatic, ..."
Abstract This paper presents a critically evaluates "Who Rules America? Power and Politics in the Year 2000" by G. William Domhoff. The author
gives an overview, and proceeds to analyze several aspects of the book such as theory, argument and concept.
From the paper:
"The American Dream consists of many things including the obtaining of money and wealth. Most of us want it, few of actually get there and some of use even thinks it's a bad place to be. William Domhoff is one such person. He wrote a book titled Who Rules America? Power and Politics in the Year 2000 and in that book he presents his theory of the way our economy and standard of living currently work. "
Abstract This paper analyzes the Rule of Law. It review the concepts discussed in "The Problem of the Grudge Informer", by Lon Fuller. The paper discusses the hypothetical problem in the law that is clearly based on the real world experience of Germany under the Nazi regime. Fuller's problem essentially concerns the concept of the rule of law and how the law can be said to exist in a state in which a duly elected government willingly and successfully perverts justice for its own ends while all the while acting within the many of the technical parameters of the legal code of that specific state.
From the Paper "The Rule of Law and the Problem of the Grudge Informer In "The Problem of the Grudge Informer" Lon Fuller presents a hypothetical problem in the law that is clearly based on the real-world experience of Germany under the Nazi regime. Fuller's problem essentially concerns the concept of the "rule of law" and how the law can be said to exist in a state in which a duly elected government willingly and successfully perverts justice for its own ends while, all the while, acting within the many of the technical parameters of the legal code of that specific state. "
Abstract The paper discusses how it is usually thought that the natural sciences deal with objective facts that may be empirically observed, while social sciences such as sociology and psychology deal with more subjective matters and as such these social sciences cannot be as scientific and objective as the natural sciences. However, the paper explains that many theorists would like to assign rules to the methods of social sciences, so that they can lay claim to unearthing information that is as reliable and valid as the information discovered by natural scientists. This is essentially what Emile Durkheim tried to do in "The Rules of Sociological Method."
Abstract This paper analyzes the way in which Bismarck conducted himself as a statesmen and how he managed to rule a very volatile area in the late 1800's. The writer examines his personal life and then moves on to how his foreign policies affected his power - with regard to wars, treaties and internal domestic stability.
From the Paper "Machiavelli was a man who was solely interested in how to be an effective ruler who has solid grasp over his subjects. Machiavelli knew that being moral and consistent was not the way to do this, and thus those things do not factor into his idea of how to rule effectively and it is also why, rightfully so, the name Machiavelli has become synonymous with crafty, shady, and power-hungry. Bismarck's ruling style was a great example of Machiavelli's theories being put into real life use and succeeding. He started a war with France just to increase his power; he would "seem" merciful in treaties and make his country "seem" powerful. He allied with Austria, only to crush them in a 7-week war, and he would stir up nationalistic feelings in his opponents? conquered territories simply to give him better position for attack. Bismarck was a man who thought of humans as tools and objects for his purposes."
Tags: germany, prince, prussia, rule, govern, Machiavelli, austria
Abstract In this article, the writer examines the concept of majority rules and minority rights in the U.S. Constitution. The writer gives some present day examples of controversies regarding these issues.
From the Paper "A basic principle of democracy is majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights which although seemingly contradictory are the very foundation of democratic government. Majority rule is a means of organizing government and deciding public issues without taking away the basic rights and freedoms of minority groups or individuals. Majority rule is spelled out in the ... "
Abstract This paper explains that Bill Russell was a sports figure who offers his eleven lessons on leadership based on his time as a basketball player. The author points out that, in "Russell Rules", Russel adapted sport leadership to other arenas such as business and politics. The paper relates how Russell's ideas are in keeping with the ideas of other business leaders who have written advice books for future leaders.
From the Paper "Bill Russell is a sports figure who sets forth eleven lessons on leadership. Clearly, these lessons were developed in a sporting context and can be applied to team efforts, suggesting ways of being a leader and of empowering others to do their best. These lessons are applicable in many other contexts, of course, including business, political situations, and similar areas where leadership is needed and where the individual can follow these rules to achieve his or her best. The leadership lessons Russell offers are comparable to those offered by other business leaders who similarly want to empower others to achieve the most they can achieve. Russell's approach shows clearly that there is a link between all forms of leadership and efforts at achieving personal excellence so that business leaders and sports leaders can learn from and teach one another lessons that apply in both realms and that lead to success."
This paper examines the evolution and evaluation of the exclusionary rule from its origins in the 1789 Virginia Bill of Rights to the modern landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio.
Abstract This paper explains that the exclusionary rule falls under the province of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures from agents of the state; and upon which the Supreme Court ruled in 1914 that any evidence obtained in unlawfully or illegally was inadmissible as evidence during a trial. The author reviews important cases that have shaped the scope and spirit of the exclusionary rule, such as Leon v. United States and Vernonia v. Acton. The paper studies criticisms against the exclusionary rule, including arguments that by letting criminals get their cases dismissed on technicalities, the exclusionary rule subverts the justice system.
Table of Contents
Definitions of the Exclusionary Rule History of the Exclusionary Rule Boyd v. United States
Weeks v. United States
Wolf v. Colorado
Mapp v. Ohio
Exclusions to the Exclusionary Rule Criticisms of the Exclusionary Rule Arguments in Defense of the Exclusionary Rule Alternatives to the Exclusionary rule Conclusion
From the Paper "One of Madison's proposals was based on the Virginia law against general search warrants. Thus, the proposed Bill of Rights included a provision to guarantee citizens protection against unreasonable searchers and seizures, a provision that eventually formed the foundation for the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, Madison also pushed for a clause protecting people from becoming witnesses against themselves. Madison and his supporters were concerned over previous practices in Church tribunals, where confessions extracted through torture were then used against a defendant in Court. This clause in turn formed the basis of the modern Constitution's Fifth Amendment."
Abstract This paper discusses why the Miranda Rule is well-tailored to guard against constitutional violations and presents an argument for the Miranda Rule. The Miranda Rule, first adopted in 1966, is still a contentious ruling in today's criminal justice system. The paper explains that, while some critics of the rule feel it is not a deterrent to coercion of information from a suspect, most experts believe the Miranda Rule was created with a solid foundation to help ensure a suspect's rights are not violated, and the information from any suspect is admissible in court. It argues that the Miranda Rule guards the criminal justice system just as well as it guards against rights violations and, because of this, it is vital to the quick and efficient trying of cases.
From the Paper "The Miranda Rule was created in 1966 as a result of the Supreme Court case "Miranda vs. Arizona." The court required law enforcement officers and agencies making an arrest to inform a victim of his rights, in accord with the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees freedom from self-incrimination. The Miranda statement (often simply referred to as "Miranda") is usually a version something like this, read to detainees before they are questioned: "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be obtained for you before police questioning" (FindLaw). Miranda has become common knowledge to most Americans because of its' constant use on most police and detective television shows. Just about everyone knows about Miranda, but not everyone knows why it is such and effective tool for law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system."
Tags: arrest, criminal, justice, lawyer, attorney, rights
Abstract This paper focuses on the confusion over the exact definition of the Hague Convention, The Hague-Visby Rules Amendments and the Hamburg Rule. The writer of this paper explains in-depth the definition for each rule and how they affect the liability of maritime shipping carriers and what effects the amendments have on carriers while also examining the limitations placed, beyond the existing treaties, concerning liability.
Topics covered in this report include:
Introduction and Thesis
The Hague Convention
The Hague-Visby Rules The Hamburg Rules Liability of the Carrier
Basis of Liability
Limits of Liability
Liability of the Shipper
Special Rules on Dangerous Goods
Bills of Lading: Reservations and Evidentiary Effect
Guarantees by the Shipper
Conclusions
Bibliography
From the Paper "Starting with the First Peace Conference at Hague, signed July 29, 1899, a maritime agreement was entered into force on September 4, 1900. This treaty provides for general rules of conduct for carrying Merchant Shipping throughout the world. However, the convention realized at the outset it was an incomplete and unrefined document with flaws that could be worked out through negotiations at later conferences to be held in the future.
Thus the Second Peace Conference at Hague, signed October 18, 1907 and entered into force January 26, 1910 further refined the Merchant Shipping Provisions."
Abstract This paper explores the role of the exclusionary rule in the US legal system. The writer first defines exclusionary rules as a set of guidelines which dictate that evidence and or admissions of guilt obtained illegally will be excluded from being heard in criminal trials. Next, historical controversies involving this set of rules are discussed. Also examined is the manner in which law enforcement is affected by the exclusionary rule. The author also considers the need to seek a balance between collecting evidence yet protecting the individual's Constitutional rights. Finally, the author proposes changes for the exclusionary rule, which may include compensation when rights are violated.
Outline
Introduction
Controversy and History of the Exclusionary Rule Law Enforcement Effects
Protecting Good Faith Exemptions
Is it Time for Change?
References
From the Paper "The exclusionary law or laws, more appropriately, then go on to provide a set of rules that dictate that evidence and or admissions of guilt obtained illegally will be excluded from being heard in criminal trials. What this quite often amounts to is that criminals who are guilty can go free, if the evidence needed to convict them is tainted in some manner, having been acquired illegally, with certain exceptions, though many argue the exceptions and rules are unclear and are in constant need of redress by the courts. (Chun 2000:799) (Holland 2000:1107)"
