Innocent Until Proven Guilty: An Evaluation

Innocent Until Proven Guilty: An Evaluation This claim is very similar to that of Blackstones ratio, which simply states that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer When taken at face value, it simply means that no one should be punished for any alleged crime, unless it can be proven that they are guilty. This is so that justice can be done, where no innocent should suffer for anothers crime. Although it sounds logical and fairly straight forward, before we agree with the claim, we should seek to understand each detail of the claim, where the claim implies, and the consequences of the eventuation of the claim. Interpretation and Analysis As discussed above, the general idea of the claim is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The claim implies that as long as there is any doubt, however insignificant, that a defendant is guilty, he should be released, lest he be unjustly incarcerated. By using the word incarcerated instead of using more specific words like imprison, it opens up several other possible meanings to the claim. The other possible meanings would be confinement or, in other words, placed under detention. The claim also failed to specify the time frame, so it is also implying that innocent persons should not be unjustly incarcerated, even for the shortest period of time. In this context, it can be linked to that of Australias detention orders under the anti terrorism law, which allows a person to be detained for 24 hours, with the option for the order to be extended for a total period not exceeding 48 hours. This, in itself, is controversial, as it is said to infringe the personal rights of liberty of individuals. Sadly, a world where no innocents are unjustly punished is a utopian one. Indeed, it is the ideal scenario when only the guilty is punished, and the innocent walks free. That is what the justice system is about. However, this is not always the case, and there is always a possibility that an innocent person is found guilty. An example of such a case would be DOrta-Ekenaike v Victorian Legal Aid, when the plaintiff was unjustly convicted due to bad legal advice given by the Victorian Legal Aid  [2]  . In fact, in many criminal cases, there is always a small chance that, however ridiculous the argument or explanation the defence puts up, it could be actually true, and that the defendant is truly innocent. Therefore, in order to ensure that truly no innocent is punished by mistake, the defendant must be allowed to go free in such cases, no matter how probable that he is guilty of the accused crime. This is the exact scenario which the claim seems to suggest at face value, where it is better that fifty guilty persons walk free than a single innocent person be unjustly incarcerated, and this might lead to the breakdown of the justice system, when the accused would simply conjure up some story to use as defence in court, hence raising doubt about their guilt, so that they would get acquitted. The claim also failed to mention the type of crime which the fifty persons allowed to walk free were guilty of. The scenario the claim suggests might be within limits which are reasonable if it is for relatively minor offences such as littering or parking offences, but it is an entirely different story if the crimes of the fifty guilty people include serious offences such as murder. This raises the question on whether it is worth the personal rights of the person, to uphold justice for this one innocent person, and in turn, opening up the possibility that fifty violent psychopaths being allowed to walk free to wreak havoc in society. Even if it is argued that it is not necessary that all fifty people are those guilty of serious crimes, the damage that even just one serial murderer can do is very significant. We just cannot afford to let one serial murderer walk free, much less fifty, for the stability and peace within our society. In light of the terrorist acts on the September 11, 2001, as well as the subsequent acts of terror around the world, it raises another problem to the claim. The damage that a single terrorist could wreak in our society could possibly be beyond what many of us can imagine. Even if just one of the hypothetical guilty people who are released is a terrorist, much less fifty, there would be serious implications to our society as a whole. The terrorist, with an agenda to create as much terror as he can, could detonate bombs in crowded areas like what happened in the Bali bombings, go on a shooting spree or even disrupt important conferences which involves world leaders. Not only will these result in loss of numerous lives, it will also tarnish the nations reputation in the eyes of other countries, especially if it involved the leaders of other nations, and this, in turn would have negative economic consequences, an example being the decline in the number of tourists. Therefore, in these times of turmoil and terror, perhaps, if the incarceration, be it temporary or permanent, of one innocent along with the fifty guilty people would be the key factor in preventing a terrorist attacks which would possibly result in numerous loss of lives, perhaps, ignoring the personal rights of the individual, it is the better alternative than letting all of them walk free, with possibly disastrous consequences. Evaluation and Inference The claim can be related to many of the theories we have learnt in the course, the most prominent one being liberalism, which is linked to human rights. It also can be related to the theory of natural law, as well as utilitarianism, which focuses more on the morals of the consequences rather than that of the action itself. From the natural law point of view, which focuses on the ethics of ones actions rather than the consequences, the laws of the state which goes against the values set out in Gods law, or based on principles of justice, are morally wrong. Laws made by the state should follow the set of values, or they would not be just law. Some things are just plain morally wrong, such as the wartime atrocities under the German law, and most people, if not all, would agree. The punishment of an innocent individual, as suggested by the claim, although nowhere as serious as the former, is still morally wrong in the eyes of most people. It is even stated in the Bible in Genesis 18:23-32 that God would not punish the innocent, and that if ten innocent and just people are found within the city, God would not destroy the city for their sake.  [3]  Therefore it can be said that in the eyes of natural law, the claim is perfectly just, and that laws made by the state should adhere to the principles laid do wn by the claim. From the liberalism point of view, which emphasises on individual rights, the unjust incarceration of an individual, regardless of the duration, would be an infringement of the rights of the individual. In fact, by the incarceration of the individual, it already goes against a number of rights listed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, examples being Article 11, where everyone is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and Article 13, where everyone has freedom of movement within the boundaries of each state.  [4]  These are fundamental human rights which everyone is presumed to have, and it can be disturbing to suggest that some of this rights are being violated in a first world country, such as Australia. Examples would be the preventive detention order, control orders as well as questioning warrants in Australia, where individuals, in some cases even those without suspicion, may be detained for questioning.  [5]   However, the two perspectives mentioned above does not take into account the consequences of the actions. From the utilitarianism point of view, the most moral action would be the one which would benefit the most number of people in the end, instead of focusing on the morality of the act itself. This could be seen as for the benefit of communal wellbeing, which brings about the commonly heard phrase for the greater good. If by detaining the group of people, inclusive of the fifty guilty people as well as one innocent person, and as a result, terrorist attacks could be avoided, then in the eyes of the utilitarian, it is the act that is the most moral. In fact, by the very same Universal declaration of rights mentioned earlier, it is mentioned in Article 2 that Everyone has the right to security of the person.  [6]  Since in this scenario, it is impossible to be entitled to all the rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is ultimately better to choose the out come which end up benefiting the most people. Since somebody is going to suffer in the end, it might as well be that innocent individual, rather than the whole of society being affected as a result. Of course, some people might point out the individual rights of the hypothetical innocent person. and the justification for the incarceration. They might even enquire how is it even permissible that the innocent can be incarcerated even without being proven that he is guilty. However, looking back in time, when man first came together to form society, they had to give up part of their liberty in exchange for stability when they had to follow the law, so that they are able to live peacefully in turn. In light of the terrorist attacks, each of us should be prepared to give up a bit more of our rights, so that we are able to have the peace of mind and live in security. It is due to the nature of the terrorist attacks, which we have to take extra precautions, as there can be almost no warning when a terrorist will strike, and when it does happen, the damage would be massive. It is not always possible to find sufficient evidence in time to detain the suspected terrorists, and new anti ter rorism laws had to be introduced to allow the detention of suspected terrorists without the need for evidence, and it is inevitable that innocents would be detained by mistake as well. This is further justified, when Australia is near the top of the terrorists hit list, and the danger of such attacks occurring in the country is very real indeed.  [7]  The possibility of being incarcerated by mistake, along with the actual guilty people is a risk we must be all be prepared to take, so that we can enjoy continued peace. Reflection When I first started working on the essay, my original intention was to write revolving around the issue of human rights. I actually intended to write in support for the human rights of the innocent individual, as in reality, no reasonable person would want to be put under detention even without being proven to be guilty. This, I believe, would be the more popular mindset, and the more popular perspective. It is also one of the reasons why I chose to study law, which is to fight for the rights of others, and for a small duration of time, I was focused on planning my essay argument solely towards that direction. Although I am not a fan of the utilitarian perspective, being from a Christian background and having the beliefs that the morality is all about the actions of the individual, throughout the course of planning and writing the essay I have realised that the consequences of the scenario suggested by the claim are also extremely important, and a balance has to be struck between the morality of the action and that of the consequences. Having held leadership appointments in the Singapore Armed Forces, I also understand that some measures, although harsh and unpopular, are necessary for the security and wellbeing of the society. This has also helped me to understand that the threat of terrorism is very real, and that the peace we are living in now should not be taken for granted. This essay has also revealed myself as a open-minded individual, as I was willing to reconsider my own views and beliefs throughout the course of writing this essay. The essay also revealed showed that I am courageous, by challenging the viewpoints which are commonly taken for granted, as well as taking up an unorthodox perspective. Conclusion Therefore, perhaps in these times of terror, and with Australia running the real risk of being hit by terrorist attacks, letting fifty people go free so that no innocents are incarcerated would be inappropriate. Although I support the laws allowing individuals to be detained even without being proved to be guilty due to the sheer necessity, I believe that the authorities should show discretion in doing so and not abuse the power it provides. This is after all, a delicate balance between human rights and the communal wellbeing of the society.

Land, Public and Private Essay

1. Why do humans value land? Humans value land because it has multiple purposes such as agriculture, housing, recreation, industry, disposing waste, mining, etc. 2. What is the tragedy of the commons? What is an externality? The tragedy of commons is when people share a common resource they tend to deplete is because of self-interest and for a short term profit. 3. What is maximum sustainable yeild? Maximum sustainable yield is the maximum amount of harvest that the land can produce without having to compensate the future of the land or resource. 4. What are the main uses of public lands in the U.S.? The main uses of public lands in the United States is National parks, Managed resource protections areas, Habitat and species management areas, Strict Nature reserves and Wilderness areas, Protected landscapes and seascapes, National monuments, etc. 5. How do human land use decisions influence categories of public land classification? Human land use decisions influence categories of public land classification because what land we have interest in we will express more environmental policies, laws, and put more time in managing the land. 6. What are the ways in which timber is harvested in U.S. Forest, and how do they compare in terms of their environmental impact? Timber in the United States is harvest by commercial logging in exchange for a percentage of revenue. Clear cutting removes almost all of the trees within a certain area. This method is the most economical method because all the trees will be the same age because they are all planted at the same time. This method can also cause habitat alterations that can lose biodiversity. Selective cutting removes single trees out of a few number of trees. This method works only among shade tolerant trees because the other trees grow adjacently. The environment impact is less but the overall negatives effects are the same. 7. What is the significance of the National Wilderness Area designation for parts of federally owned lands? The significance of the National Wilderness Area for  parts of federally owned lands is to set aside land to preserve large intact ecosystems. The designated wilderness area however has roads that existed before the designations and may be still in use, mining activities can be permitted , and human use is limited but can still be done. 8. What is NEPA, and what is an environmental impact statements (EIS)? A NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This act involves federal money or federal permits. The Environmental impact statement (EIS) outlines the scope and purpose of development project that describes the environmental context. 9. What are urban sprawl and smart growth? Urban sprawl is the creation of urbanized areas that spread into rural areas and remove clear boundaries. Smart growth is the strategies that encourage the development of sustainable, healthy communities. 10. How can zoning help reduce urban sprawl? Zoning can help reduce urban sprawl because it can create a quieter and safer community.

Off-the-Job Behavior

Textbook Case Study Off-the-Job Behavior 1. Do you believe Oiler’s employee rights were violated? Explain your position. Peter Oiler’s termination from his job by the Winn-Dixie Corporation was an obvious violation of his employee rights. Though balancing employee rights with proper discipline is a constant challenge for HR professionals. But in this case of Oiler, the work place behavior of the employer had not changed and there is no problem, with the co-employers also. Also in the own time, the company have no rights about the way he dress.Hence there is also no such challenge for the Winn-Dixie that it has to terminate Oiler. Hence I would consider that Winn-Dixie has violated the employee rights of Oiler. Also his social security has been compromised. When we consider the situation here is more normal than a similar case in 2005, which happened in Georgia. According to that, the courts consider this as sexual discrimination under 42 U. S. C. Sec. 1983 and Equal Pro tection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.And the development of trans-gender transitions has a real concern and the laws accept the claims of discrimination under employer’s categorizing of genders. Thus Oiler’s claim is acceptable and Winn-Dixie has to oblige to the claims of Oiler. Here Oiler’s can be taken as an example of opposition of trans-genders in the general public. Though the laws are guarding them, the manipulation of thought caused by these cases is more than the actual violation. Since the court ruled out as not a violation, it will be a wrong guideline as the decision can be referenced in consecutive references. . What do you see as the consequences of organizations that punish employees for certain off-the-job behaviors? Explain. In the case of punishment of the employees, the people have united against this unrightfully action. Also it had created an uneasy environment among the workers. Most organizations which do the punishment of workers for off-job behaviors as they feel as their right, run the risk of being faced with numerous lawsuits and allegations of partiality and discriminatory practices.Hence these organizations end up with a bad reputation and a question mark for credibility. Which in turn costs, they also face losing customers, business partners and stockholders. There will be a greater number of individuals who do not agree with these abrupt decisions than who support it. Hence they will decide to cut their ties with organizations who favor such practices. It would be safe to assume that many businesses that were previously a part of the Winn-Dixie organizations like financial institutions, suppliers etc. ade the decision to no longer be associated with a company that would practice such unethical and immoral standards of business. This will in turn destroy the past achievement and the support it had earned and also future trades with other organization is also threatened. Hence it completely obliterates the potential success of any business or organization. Any business organization must have rules and regulations which must be followed to and by all employees. Additionally, businesses must have particular methods in place to discipline individuals who do not follow the rules. 3.Would you consider Winn-Dixie an organization that exhibits characteristics of progressive discipline or the hot stove approach? Defend your position. According to me, Winn-Dixie is an organization which exhibits hot stove characteristics. This can be made on seeing the action taken by Winn-Dixie. Oiler has a clean organizational behavior and has a perfect work record. His career track record is also proper and he is considered as an asset by all the workers. When we consider about the harshness of the Disciplinary action, terminating the employee is considered as a most severe disciplinary action.And the Winn-Dixie had done this, hence it is a Hot stove characteristic. The hot-stove approach p unishes all unacceptable behaviors with identical disciplinary actions whereas the progressive approach, warns individuals depending on the harshness and/or the reoccurrence of actions and behaviors which they have previously been warned against. The severe disciplinary action can be taken for an offense is so serious that immediate dismissal is appropriate such as theft, sexual harassment, violence, plagiarism etc.And since the person involved has not done anything, hence he should not be taken severe discipline. Also before taking a decision of terminating the employee, the company neither talked to Oiler for an explanation nor it has given Oiler a verbal warning so that he can be more careful in future. Thus it had taken the action immediately and without giving time to Oiler for confirming his position or giving any explanation. Hence Winn-Dixie is following hot stove procedure in disciplinary actions.

Abortion Should Not Be Illegal Essay - 1123 Words

Abortion is widely debated across the world and in 1973 Roe v. Wade would start an issue with ethical and legal issues. There are multiple cases arguing why it should or shouldn’t be lawful to go through with this procedure. Women should have the right to get an abortion as It is her rights to decide if they aren’t able to be able have a child, the woman shouldn’t have to rely on anyone else, she should be able to make this decision as they have to carry it for 9 months and endure the physical pain. Abortion should not be illegal because it is justifiable in cases of rape, or when the woman has mental health or financial issues. In the case of rape, it is unjustifiable to say that a woman has to carry a baby when she is forced into intercourse with a man who the woman does not please. For those who say that abortion is so inhumane, why doesn’t one simply look at the act of rape as disgusting as someone would look at abortion. The victim is going through enough being forced without choice to have a child if she consumes, so why make her carry the baby for 9 months knowing that the perpetrator has given her this child. I don’t think that the women should have to be mentally viable for this child or have to take care of a child that is forced upon her own will. Having a child hurts very much, why put a victim of rape through more pain then she has to endure? Abortion isn’t illegal in other countries for more serious issues why should America make it illegal? Someone with mentalShow MoreRelatedShould Abortion Be Illegal?859 Words   |  4 PagesThousands of women decide to have an abortion each year. An abortion is when a mother decides that they do not want to continue their pregnancy so they terminate the baby/fetus. Abortion is just another term for murder. The baby is an innocent human being who does not get a say about whether or not they want to be born. There are usually two ways that an abortion can occur: a pill or surgery. Abortions affect not only the immediate family, but also their relatives. Abortions come with many physical and emotionalRead MoreShould Abortion Be Illegal?899 Words   |  4 Pages Abortion is a very invasive and tragic medical procedure that is used to terminate a pregnancy and ultimately end an innocent life that is known as the unborn fetus or baby and should be illegal. This medical procedure consists of in most cases regrettable choices and an emotional toile on a person’s life that cannot be undone. Abortion should be illegal because it’s sending a very negative message to the younger generation that being promiscuous and making bad decisions can have almost no responsibilityRead MoreShould Abortion Be Illegal?1142 Words   |  5 PagesMadison Bobe Mrs. Monts Enriched English II 25 April 2015 Should Abortion Be Illegal? Thousands of women in the world have abortions. â€Å" Since the 1970’s, abortion has been a very controversial issue throughout the United States. Anti-Abortion and pro choice organizations often express their differences of opinion in lawful demonstrations† (Andryszewski 10).Think of it this way, all of the fetuses are in life or death situations. Their mother is choosing whether or not she wants to keep them orRead MoreShould Abortion Be Illegal?1930 Words   |  8 PagesJacqueline Naour 9th Hour â€Å"Abortion does not make you un-pregnant, it makes you the mother of a dead baby†-Jacqueline Naour. Before researching this report I did not really think about how they kill the child or how the abortion actually occurs, so I did not really think much of it or know it was such a bad thing. As I have written this report I realized that it is honestly one of the worst things I’ve ever read about and should be illegal without question. Abortion should be illegal because it makes humanRead MoreAbortion Propaganda: Abortion Should Be Illegal593 Words   |  2 PagesAbortion is murder no matter what a person believes ! There are many reasons abortion should be illegal . Think about The health threat to the mother after going through with the procedure as well as the lifelong health risks that remain , also the emotional damage that occurs . Personally I’m against abortion and you should be as well . Many may not know that abortion can be a threat to a women’s health because all they see or choose to see is the reason why she is going through with the procedureRead MoreEssay Abortions Should Be Illegal1264 Words   |  6 PagesWhy are abortions legal? Do the doctors enjoy killing the babies since they can’t fight back or protect themselves? Do you know what the doctors do to the child when they are giving an abortion? Abortions are wrong and should be illegal around the world or at least in the United States. Abortions should be illegal; an abortion kills a human being that cannot fight back. How would you like if someone pulled you out of bed and duct taped your mouth shut, then just cut off your head? I don’t thinkRead MoreAbortion Should Be Illegal 3768 Words   |  4 PagesABORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL Jenny Martinez Mrs.Cholish American History I 12/16/10 Jenny Martinez Mrs. Cholish American History I 12/16/10 Abortion Should be Illegal Abortion is no different than murder no matter when a person believes a human life becomes official. This controversy will remain for centuries, but in no country should it be legal. The fact that a potential life has ended before given a chance is murder. Most people agree thatRead MoreShould Abortion Be Illegal? Essay845 Words   |  4 Pagesthink abortion should be illegal and the choice of women to choose what to do about their own bodies and pregnancies is being considered getting taken away from them? Abortion is a medical procedure that terminates pregnancy. It is usually done during the first twelve months of pregnancy, called the first trimester. Abortion has been legal ever since 1973 after the Roe v. Wade court case. This court case overturned all state laws in the United States restricting a woman’s access to abortion proceduresRead MoreAbortion Is Unsafe And Should Be Illegal1487 Words   |  6 Pagescould you do this to me ¨. Abortion is a horrific experie nce, that no one should ever endure. I am Pro-Life because of the consequences for mothers, the availability of adoption instead of abortion, and finally the Pro-Life movements in America. First I d like to talk about the consequences for mothers. This is a big reason why I think abortion is unsafe and should be illegal. The first thing I want to address is the mental state of the mothers who have had an abortion. Most times the mental stateRead MoreShould Abortion Be Legal Or Illegal?939 Words   |  4 Pagesissues is abortion. Abortion has been around at almost every point in American history. Consequently, since the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade there have been approximately 57,762,169 abortions in America (â€Å"Are You†). This raises the question of should abortion be legal or illegal, and is this immoral or moral to do? The decision to have an abortion can be a difficult time in a woman’s life, but is not a moral way to end a pregnancy. Abortion in the United States should be illegal because of