Ethics in Justice, Law, and Social Control Research Paper

Ethics in Justice, Law, and Social Control - Research Paper Example The law therefore upholds true liberty. The law is meant to prevent a person from causing grave harm to themselves and others where there are no other means of doing so. These are called paternalism laws. This could be either economic physical or even psychological harm. Besides protecting people from harm, there is the moral perspective of the law. This means that something can be prohibited simply because it is wrong. Pollock gives the example of pornography which is prohibited by the law in America (Pollock, 2007). Research has shown that the viewing of pornographic materials does not cause any perceivable harm on the individual, nor does it cause an increase in sexually related crime. Pornography is thus prohibited simply because it is morally wrong. Laws may also be developed because they benefit others. For instance, forest conservation laws prohibit the cutting down of trees not because it would cause harm to the actor or to other but because conservation benefits everyone inc luding generations which are yet to be born. There are conflicts that may arise with the paternalistic laws where some systems give more weight to individual rights allowing people to do some actions, even though they may cause harm to themselves. ... The next time he sees the mayor driving carelessly and possibly being a threat to the safety of other road users. In this case, if the police officer stops the mayor and gives her another ticket, he would get in trouble with his boss. If he, however, ignores the mayor and in an unfortunate incidence the mayor causes an accident on the road, the police officer would be accountable for that accident since he would have failed in his duty of upholding the law. In this situation, the most ethical thing that the police should do would be to stop the mayor and kindly warn her for over-speeding and again give her a ticket. This is because letting her drive that dangerously not only puts her life in danger but also puts the lives of other road users at risk. Since the mayor knows that she has the support of the captain, she is more likely to continue breaking more traffic rules. Being in a position of power does not mean that one should break the laws that have been put in place to protect t he rights of everyone. Such an action would definitely put the police officer in an awkward position with the captain. Conversely, the captain is not his ultimate boss, and there are other senior people whom he reports to and who may not condone such behavior. In case the captain punishes the officer for upholding by the law, the officer should ensure that he keeps all evidences of this case in order to prove his innocence to the seniors. Although corruption has been seen to be a common occurrence especially in our large cities, stopping it requires that all actions be guided by the law (Pollock, 2007). Not all judges or senior officers are corrupt and any officer should focus on doing the right thing and protecting the people as is stated in their job

Pavarotti Fashions Brand Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Pavarotti Fashions Brand - Case Study Example The paper "Pavarotti Fashions Brand" discovers case with the Brand of Pavarotti Fashions. In the first case, Amanda ordered a pair of jeans from Pavarotti’s mail order catalogue on the 5th of December. She received a notice on the 12th of December that the jeans are no longer available for the advertised price, but for the revised price of J300, introduced on the 8th of December. While Pavarotti offered a complete refund, Amanda refused the offer and insists that Pavarotti sell the merchandise for J250, as advertised. The relevant issue therefore is whether Amanda’s rights were violated as a result of Pavarotti’s refusal to sell her the merchandise based on the advertised price; and whether she can compel Pavarotti to sell her the merchandise based on the advertised price. In determining whether Amanda’s rights were violated, one must assess her rights as Pavarotti’s customer, in particular and as a consumer, in general. As Pavarotti’s custom er, Amanda’s rights depend on her contractual relationship with Pavarotti, such that a contract binding the two to specific performance must first exist. However, the courts may find that a contract does not exist. Looking unto Partridge v Crittendon , Pavarotti’s advertisements in the catalogue can be treated as an â€Å"invitation to treat† as opposed to an offer. By ordering, Amanda is simply making an offer. However, in introducing the revised price, Pavarotti makes a counter-offer, which is tantamount to a rejection of Amanda’s offer, ending the current negotiations.... While Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co7 illustrates a contrary situation, where if applied to Amanda's case leads to a valid contract and existing obligations between the two parties8, this application is unlikely. Unlike in Carlill, Pavarotti, through the mail order catalogue did not illustrate a willingness to be bound by the advertisements, such that the company was merely supplying information to prospective customers. The lack of contractual intent on Pavarotti's part makes his advertisements merely an invitation to treat, as opposed to an offer. Furthermore, looking at the nature of Pavarotti's business where the merchandise is always subject to the availability of stock9 and the fact that mail order catalogues are already dated once released, such that it does not reflect price changes made within the company's physical office days after the release; Amanda cannot rely on the catalogue's certainty. Thus, the lack of contractual intent on the part of Pavarotti, and the lack of certainty, as illustrated in the facts given regarding the mail order catalogue, illustrates that no binding contract was formed, such that Amanda cannot hold Pavarotti to sell her the merchandise based on the adver tised price because no contractual relationship or obligation exists between the parties. Insofar as contractual obligations are concerned, Amanda therefore has no claim against Pavarotti. However, as a consumer, she can claim that Pavarotti's action violates her civil rights. Based on the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987, Pavarotti can be subject to criminal liabilities. Amanda can argue that even though there is no contractual obligation between her and