Horshoe Crab
Nassiff Deenah
BUL 3130
9/10/2012
Midterm Examination
Chapter 1- pg. 27, Question 1-10
A.) The three seamen should be subject to penalties under English criminal law in terms of offering compensation to the boy’s parents in terms of remedies. The defendants’ actions were necessary due to the fact that they needed to eat in order to survive and defeat the deathly grip of the elements. In addition, the act of killing the boy was unethical, however if they did not assist in relieving the boy of death, the boy would have died anyway.
B.) Judges should have the power to look beyond the written “letter of the law” in making their decisions. Judges should rule on precedents, however, sometimes a court will depart from the rule of precedent if it decides that the precedent should no longer be followed. For example, if a court decides that a ruling precedent is simply incorrect or that technological or social changes have rendered the precedent inapplicable, the court might rule contrary to the precedent.
Chapter 2-pg. 55, Question 2-6
I do not think such comments are sufficient to require a new trial. I believe that a juror’s bias must be discovered before the trial, during voir dire. During voir dire in most jurisdictions, attorneys for the plaintiff and the defendant ask prospective jurors oral questions to determine whether a potential jury member is biased or has any connection with a party to the action or with a prospective witness.
Chapter 4-pg. 91, Question 4-1
Even though Trevor’s conduct was legal by not having to report test results to the FDA, it was unethical for him to sell goods that had once tested positive for salmonella. If Trevor had followed the six basic guidelines for making ethical business decisions, he would not still have sold the contaminated goods. Guideline numbers 2, 3, 4, & 5 apply the most in this particular case as rules and procedures, values, conscience, and promises have all been violated to some extent.
Chapter
BUL 3130
9/10/2012
Midterm Examination
Chapter 1- pg. 27, Question 1-10
A.) The three seamen should be subject to penalties under English criminal law in terms of offering compensation to the boy’s parents in terms of remedies. The defendants’ actions were necessary due to the fact that they needed to eat in order to survive and defeat the deathly grip of the elements. In addition, the act of killing the boy was unethical, however if they did not assist in relieving the boy of death, the boy would have died anyway.
B.) Judges should have the power to look beyond the written “letter of the law” in making their decisions. Judges should rule on precedents, however, sometimes a court will depart from the rule of precedent if it decides that the precedent should no longer be followed. For example, if a court decides that a ruling precedent is simply incorrect or that technological or social changes have rendered the precedent inapplicable, the court might rule contrary to the precedent.
Chapter 2-pg. 55, Question 2-6
I do not think such comments are sufficient to require a new trial. I believe that a juror’s bias must be discovered before the trial, during voir dire. During voir dire in most jurisdictions, attorneys for the plaintiff and the defendant ask prospective jurors oral questions to determine whether a potential jury member is biased or has any connection with a party to the action or with a prospective witness.
Chapter 4-pg. 91, Question 4-1
Even though Trevor’s conduct was legal by not having to report test results to the FDA, it was unethical for him to sell goods that had once tested positive for salmonella. If Trevor had followed the six basic guidelines for making ethical business decisions, he would not still have sold the contaminated goods. Guideline numbers 2, 3, 4, & 5 apply the most in this particular case as rules and procedures, values, conscience, and promises have all been violated to some extent.
Chapter