Common Law In Regards To Psychiatric Injury - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 14 Words: 4103 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Cause and effect essay Topics: Act Essay Did you like this example? Gentlemen, on 15 April 1989, there was a terrible disaster at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield football. The pressure of the masses trying to land 95 people crushed on the terraces are killed and many injured. On that day the plaintiffs (respondents to this appeal) members of the South Yorkshire Police Force were on duty at the stadium or elsewhere in Sheffield. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Common Law In Regards To Psychiatric Injury" essay for you Create order Everyone was involved in some way in the terrible consequences. Two helped to carry the dead and the dying. Two sought in vain to give CPR to those who had laid on the floor. Support in the hospital morgue. As a result of their experience, the applicants have made what was diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder, a medically recognized psychiatric illness has been suffered. The symptoms have affected their ability to work and personal life. You damages for negligence against Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and two other defendants. There were of course many people in the stadium that day, even trying as best they could to help the victims: other police officers, first assistants, paramedics and members of the public. Some of them, along with grieving relatives and friends have also developed psychiatric disorders. The claims of some of the relatives were [of your Lordships House in Alcock v. Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire in 1992 included] 1 AC 310th For reasons that I discuss, they were all rejected. But, say the plaintiffs in this appeal that the police are in a different position. First, they were Staff of the Chief Constable and they claim that the employment created obligations which are not compared to strangers. Secondly, they were present and assisted in the disaster and not just passive and helpless bystanders [that they] were rescuers. It is admitted that the disaster caused by the negligence of persons for which the accused was caused vicariously liable. The only question is whether, under such circumstances the law allows the recovery of compensation for the type of injury, having suffered by the applicants. Compensation for personal injury caused by negligence is usually recoverable if the defendant could have reasonably foreseen as a result his behavior such violations. But the common law has been reluctant to equate psychiatric injury with other forms of assault. For a long time in this century, it remained unclear whether the basis was for a liability for the emergence of a recognized psychiatric disorder simply a question of foreseeability of this type of injury in the same manner as in the case of injury. The decision of the House of Lords in Bourhill v. Young [1943] AC 1992 seemed to many to combine what is in theory a simple foreseeability test with a robust wartime view of the ability of the ordinary person to horror and sadness, without suffering ill effect. Cases soon afterwards, as King v. Phillips [1953] 1 QB 429, followed this approach, the treatment predict how an actual question, but hold potential liability within narrow limits by a very restrictive view of the circumstances in which it was foreseeable that psychiatric injury might occur. But such decisions are criticized as unrealistic. Everyone knew that some people suffer from mental illness as a result of accidents have experienced stressful in which other people, espec ially near relatives, were involved. Some judges, sympathetic to the plaintiff in the particular case, used the opportunity as a fact that had psychiatric injuries are real predictable. This made it difficult to explain why plaintiff had failed in other cases In Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire in 1992] [1 AC 310 the House decided that the liability for psychiatric injury should be by what are Lord Lloyd of Berwick (in Page v. Smith [1996] AC 155, 189) later as a limited control, that is, more or less arbitrary conditions the plaintiff had a satisfying and which were intended to keep liability within what is considered acceptable limits. Alcock was A case that has arisen from the Hillsborough disaster. The applicants were people who had seen the events from other parts of the stadium or on television or heard it from others and then found that their relatives were among the dead. It was for the purposes of the complaint must be assumed that these experiences hav e caused them psychiatric injury. The house has been some additional conditions to be satisfied for a successful claim. I tell them in summary form, which I think is sufficiently accurate for the purposes of the present discussion but it can be used for other purposes require qualification and does not purport to be a complete description. (1) The applicant must be close ties of love and affection with the victim. Such bonds may be suspected in some cases (shown eg spouse, parent and child), but must otherwise. (2) The applicant must present in an accident or immediately thereafter. (3) The psychiatric injury must not have been in hearing about them through direct perception of the accident or its immediate consequences and caused by someone else. The result of these various control mechanisms, was that none of the Hillsborough relatives was entitled to recover. has reached the position that [the law as a result of Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1992] 1 AC 310, has not won universal approval. The control mechanisms are as drawing distinctions which the ordinary man would be too difficult to understand has been criticized. Jane Stapleton [The limits of liability (1994)] has said that a mother, the psychiatric injury suffered by that childs mutilated body in a mortuary could, why the law provisions of their childs blood to dry to wonder was an action . Even the spectacle of a plaintiff who has psychiatric illness suffered in consequence of his brothers death or injury, check with cross-legged on the degree of their bonds of love and affection and would then perhaps contradicted by evidence of a private investigator, might not be to everyones taste But It is too late to go back to the control mechanisms as indicated in Alcock. As long as there is no change of legislation, the courts must have to live with them, and any judicial developments, to consider them. The control mechanisms were apparently never intended to apply to all cases of psychiatric injury. They consider that the injuries as a result of death or injury was caused, suffered by someone else. In Page v. Smith, Lord Lloyd of Berwick described as a plaintiff as secondary victims who was in the position of a spectator or bystander. He described the plaintiff in this case (who had psychiatric injury as a result in a minor accident suffered engine) as the main victim who was directly involved in the accident and also in the range of foreseeable injury. A majority of your Lordships held that foreseeability of injury enough, a claim was held at the psychiatric injury which caused the accident. This question does not arise in this case, but the division into primary and secondary victims was discussed. The plaintiffs say they are primarily victims, because they were spectators or passers-by. The defendants say that the plaintiff secondary victims because they were not in the area of foreseeable injuries were. Essentially The plaintiffs make two distinctions between their position and that of spectators or passers-by. The first is that they [were employees] they were therefore a special obligation to, [representative of those] responsible, reasonable care to not expose them to unnecessary risk of injury, whether physical or psychiatric. Second, the plaintiff [Been] Rescuers, who, it was said, ever to qualify as primary victims. Employee I will first consider the claim to primary status under the employment The liability of an employer to his employees for negligence, either directly or agents, is not a separate tort with its own rules. It is an aspect of the general law of negligence. The relationship between employer a nd employee, the employee as a person to whom the employer owes a duty of care. But it says nothing about the circumstances under which he is liable for a certain type of injury. has suffered for it, one has the general law on the nature of the injury, looks If the employment one reason why an employee for damages for psychiatric injury in cases in which he otherwise a secondary victim and not the rest Alcock control mechanisms will be? In principle I do not think it would be fair to give police officers the right to a larger claim merely because the disaster was caused by the negligence of other policemen. In cases where the injuries were caused, I do not think this is a relevant difference, and whether it impacts should be given, the law would not like cases are treated equally. I must therefore determine whether the authorities require a contrary conclusion. And to check into it, it is important to remember, as I said earlier that they do not simultaneously statements of the law but represent legal thinking at different points in a half century of uneven development. In Robertson v. Forth Road Bridge Joint Board [1995] SC 364 [a Scottish case] Lord Hope rejected an application for psychiatric injury by employees who had witnessed the death of a fellow employee in the course of, employed at the same workplace. I respectfully agree with the reasoning of my noble and learned friend, I for one reject the employment relationship as in itself a sufficient basis for liability. Rescuers Rescue forces may without difficulty in the general principles of the law of negligence can be accommodated. There are two issues that may arise. The first is whether injury to the rescuer was foreseeable. There is usually no difficulties in operation if it is foreseeable that someone would be put in danger, it was foreseeable that someone would go to find it or try to save him or help in other ways, it in his misery. The second question is [causality] whether the voluntary act of the rescuer, or seeking help on their own life in danger negatives the cau sal connection between the original negligence and his injury. Once again, the courts also have little difficulty that such a person act from a sense of moral obligation, does not make the choice that would be necessary to eliminate the causal effect of the defendants conduct had The cases on rescuers are therefore quite simple illustrations of the application of the general principles of foreseeability and causation to particular facts. There is no authority which decides a savior in a special position in terms of liability for psychiatric injury. I am not at all logical reason why the normal treatment of rescuers on the questions of foreseeability and causation to the conclusion, should that for the purposes of liability for psychiatric injury, it has a particular treatment should lead be given as the primary victims, if they were not in the range of foreseeable physical injury and mental injury was the participation of witnesses or the consequences of accidents which cause d death or injury to others. I would like would sue in passing that I do not believe that someone should not be able to recover to be caused by negligence, in circumstances in which he justified as a rule, for injury, we say that just because his job from him demanded that lead to the risk of such injury. Such legislation, the so-called Firemans Rule gains in some of the United States, was rejected by your Lordships House, but in Ogwo v. Taylor [1988] 1 AC 431st The question here is quite different. It is not whether a policeman in the case should be excluded, in which he normally would have a right of action, but whether it should be liable for rescuers and aid workers, as its a class. And on the question of whether liability should be extended for psychiatric injury of such a class, I think it is legitimate, given the fact that in the nature of things, many of their members from occupations in which they are trained and required be to run such risks and to appropriate services if they should suffer such injuries. Of course, I feel great sympathy for the claimants, as I for all those whose lives from that day on Hillsborough branded. But I think that fairness requires that your Lordships should reject. I also have the draft of the speech of the noble and read my learned friend, Lord Steyn and tell me his reasons for the same price, which seems to me essentially the same as my own. So I want to dismiss the complaint. Lord Steyn: Political considerations and Psychiatric Harm Political considerations have certainly won a role in shaping the law on collection for pure psychiatric harm. The law imposes different rules on the recovery of compensation for physical injuries and psychological damage. It is law that bystanders at tragic events, even if they suffer foreseeable psychiatric injury are not entitled to recover damages: Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police in 1992] [1 AC handled 310th The courts have considered the political reasons against the admission of such claims as compelling. It seems reasonable to ask why such different rules were created for the recovery of the two types of damage. In his Casebook on Tort, 7 Edition. Weir gives the following account (at 88): It is equally no doubt that the public a distinction between the neurotic and the cripple, between the man, his concentration and the man his leg loses, loses. It generally takes the view that it is less to worry when he is beaten, is that trauma to the mind less than lesion to the body. Many people would say that, consequently, the duty not to injure themselves foreigners is greater than the duty not to disturb them. The law has the distinction as one would expect, reflects not only by refusing damages for grief altogether, but by granting recovery for other psychological damage late and reluctantly, and also then only in very clear cases. in tort, does include clear in the vicinity of the victim, near the accident near the defendant. I have no doubt that public perception plays an essential role in the development of this branch of the law. But today we must accept that the medical reality could be more serious psychiatric harm than physical damage. It is therefore necessary to consider whether it can justify other objective considerations, the different rules for the recovery of compensation for physical injuries and psychological damage. And in my view it would not be sufficient on the b asis that it continue not specified policy considerations at stake. If, as I believe there are such considerations, it is necessary to explain what are the political considerations, allowing the validity of my assumptions are critically examined by others. My impression is that there are at least four characteristic features of claims for psychiatric damage, which may take into account in combination for the different treatment. First, there is the complexity of drawing the line between acute pain and psychiatric harm The symptoms may be the same. But there is a greater diagnostic uncertainty in psychiatric injury cases than in cases of bodily harm. The classification of the emotional injury is often disputed. To determine psychiatric harm, expert advice is required. This involves the appointment of the consultant psychiatrists on both sides. It is a costly and time consuming exercise. When claims from a psychiatric damage were treated as generally on par with physical injuries, it would have consequences for the administration of justice. On its own this factor not be entitled to great weight and should not outweigh the considerations of justice support genuine claims in respect of pure psychiatric injury. Second, there have experienced the effect of extending the availability of compensation to potential claimants, the gruesome events. I do not have in mind or fraudulent misrepresentation. In general, it is should be for the administration of justice to debunk possible such claims. But I am thinking of the unconscious effect of the prospect of compensation for potential applicants. Where there are generally no prospect of recovery, as in the case of injuries sustained in sport does not appear to impose too many psychiatric damage. On the other hand, in case of accidents, where there is often a prospect of recovery of compensation, psychiatric damage is encountered again and again and often lasts until the process is claimed compensation to an end The litigation is sometimes an unconscious barrier to rehabilitation. It is true that this factor is already present in cases of physical injuries with concomitant mental suffering. But it may be a more important role in cases of pure psychiatric injury to play, especially when the categories of potential recovery increased. For my part, this factor can not be dismissed. The third factor is important. Enlarge the lifting or easing of the special rules for the recovery of damages for psychiatric harm significantly the class of persons, damage would be able to recover in tort. It is true that compensation for psychiatric harm routinely, if the plaintiff has suffered some physical damage award. It is also known that psychiatric harm is sufficient from the collection of physical harm due to: Page v. Smith [1996] AC 155th These two principles are not surprising. built in such situations are restrictions on the classes of plaintiffs to sue who can: the requirement of the infliction of injury or some feared to have, brings an element of immediacy, which restricts the class of potential plaintiffs. But in cases of pure psychiatric harm, it may be a large class of plaintiffs involved. Fourth, the imposition of liability for pure psychiatric injury in a variety of situations that a burden on the defendants liability in proportion to the tort involved, perhaps momentary lapses of concentration, for example, can result in a car accident. The broad scope of potential liability for pure psychiatric harm is illustrated not only by the rather unique events of Hillsborough, but also from the accidents with trains, buses, and the daily life of serious collisions of vehicles that can run in all the gruesome scenes. In such cases, it can be supported too many claims for psychiatric harm to those who have experienced, and in some ways at the scenes of the tragic events The police claim In the present case, the police officers more than just spectators. They were al l on duty at the stadium. They were all involved in assisting in the exercise of their duties following the terrible events. And they have suffered debilitating psychiatric harm. The police, therefore, argue, and are entitled to argue that the law is to compensate for the injustice that caused harm to them. This argument can not be lightly dismissed. But I am convinced that recognition of their claims would substantially expand the existing categories in which compensation for pure psychiatric injury can be restored. Also the award of damages to these policemen sits uneasily with the denial of the claims of the surviving relatives by the decision of the House of Lords in Alcock. The case law To understand how the law stands, it is necessary to follow the outline of its development. In Dulieu v. White Sons [1901] 2 K.B. 669 The Court of Appeals announced a small and relatively simple rule: psychiatric injury was actionable only if it were taken up by the applicant re asonably fear for his safety. But in Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers [1925] l.K.B. 141 The Court of Appeal dismissed the restriction in Dulieu v. White Sons in favor of a mother, the psychiatric injury suffered as a result of a fear of injury their child placed, which they just parted. The mother was described as courageous and dedicated her child and was allowed to recover. The next development step was the decision of the House of Lords in Bourhill v. Young [1943] AC 92 favor [ing] the limitation of liability for psychiatric injury in the field of physical damage. But the status of Hambrook v. Stokes Brothers remained unclear. Then came the decision in McLoughlin v. OBrian [1983] AC 410th The leading decision of the House of Lords is Alcock (1992). In this case, the rule was that only parents and spouses could for psychiatric damage as a result of witnessing a traumatic event recover. In the group of applicants Alcock, for the psychiatric injuries that included sued from the events in Hillsborough relatives who were in the stadium. The House rejected all claims and found that a person suffering reasonably foreseeable psychiatric illness as a result of another person to death or injury can not be recovered damages if it can meet three requirements, namely: (i) that it has a close combination of love and affection with the person killed, injured or endangered, (ii) that he was close to the incident in time and space, (iii) that he perceived the incident directly, rather than, for example, hearing about it from a third person . The decision of the House of Lords in Page v. Smith [1996] AC 155 was the next important development in this branch of the law. The plaintiff was directly involved in a car accident. He was within the range of possible injury. As a result of the accident he suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome. Lord Lloyd of Berwick was a distinction between primary and secondary victims: Lord Ackner and Lord Browne-Wilkinson agreed. Lord Lloyd said that a plaintiff who was in the range of foreseeable injury was a primary victim. Mr Page fulfilled this requirement and could in principle re-compensation for psychiatric loss. From my perspective, it follows that all other victims, who suffer pure psychiatric injury secondary victims and must satisfy the control mechanisms in Alcock. The decision of the House of Lords in Page v. Smith was clearly intended to harm in the context of pure psychiatric, to narrow the spectrum of potential secondary victims. The argument of Mr Lloyd and the Law Lo rds who agreed with him, is based on the concerns over an increasingly wide circle of applicants. The employment argument The rules that apply when an employee brings a sustained action against his employer for damages to his workplace, the rules of tort law. One is therefore thrown back to the ordinary rules of law of torts, which include restrictions on the recovery of compensation for psychiatric damage. This type of implementation, therefore, not previously the case to the police The rescue argument The law has long been the moral imperative of encouraging citizens to rescue persons in danger to be recognized. Those who selflessly put themselves at risk to save others during an emergency, favored by the law. A rescue attempt to save someone from the risk can be regarded as predictable If a rescuer is in a rescue attempt, a plea of non fit injuria volenti will not help the offender violated. A plea of contributory negligence is usually a short process is done. A rescuer in danger of the act is not treated as a novus actus intervene for itself. Here is the question: Who is in terms of pure psychiatric harm sustained recovery as the savior? The particular problem is that it is undisputed that none of the four police officers at any time exposed to personal danger, and no one thought he was so exposed, is To include the concept of the savior within reasonable limits, for the purpose of recovering compensation for pure psychiatric harm the plaintiff must have at least the t hreshold requirement that he set an objective of the danger or reasonably assume that he doing so. Without such a limitation would be the unedifying spectacle that, while grieving relatives is not allowed, as in Alcock, ghoulishly curious spectators, who in any way assisted in the peripheral after a disaster again, can recover. For my part, to limit the actual danger or is in custody, which means close in this particular situation. In my opinion it would be an unwarranted extension of the law on the claims of the police officer will confirm. I would dismiss the argument in this section. So far and not further In my view, is the only sensible general strategy for the courts, so far no further, and say. The only sensible way to treat the pragmatic categories as reflected in relevant decisions, such as Alcock and Page v. Smith as settled at the time but by and large, no expansion or development in this corner of the law to leave it to parliament. In reality, there is no refin ed analytical tools which enable the courts to draw lines in the form of compromise in a way that is coherent and morally defensible, it is. It must be left to Parliament to undertake the task of a radical reform.

The Detrimental Nature Of Covering Sexual Orientation

Zach Farley Professor Victoria Kill Uncovering Civil Rights 14 October 2014 The Detrimental Nature of Covering Sexual Orientation Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights, a book by a Professor of Constitutional Law at the NYU School of Law, Kenji Yoshino details a specific version of assimilation called covering. Yoshino defines covering as â€Å"[toning] down a disfavored identity to fit into the main stream† (Yoshino ix). As a gay man of Japanese descent living in the United States, Yoshino feels both internal and societal pressure to assimilate into â€Å"typical† American culture by covering himself along four primary axes: appearance, affiliation, activism and association. This societal expectation to cover one’s homosexuality†¦show more content†¦Yoshino states â€Å"[†¦] assimilation is not an escape from discrimination, but precisely its effect† (Yoshino, The Pressure to Cover). The incorrect notion that covering is an acceptable way to limit discrimination is one almost unique to the expression of o ne’s sexual orientation. This form of discrimination is one that is less pronounced than its counter parts but is equally harmful. The harm comes for the dilution and eventual destruction of gay culture caused by the societal pressure to act â€Å"straight†. Forcing the gay community to act straight should not be crowned as a solution to homophobia just as â€Å"When a Jew is forced to convert to Protestantism, for instance, we do not celebrate that as an evasion of anti-Semitism† (Yoshino, The Pressure to Cover). It is not a solution to homophobia because homophobia has not been dispelled; it merely limits the number of possible targets. The only solution is one through significant societal and political change. To Yoshino the stigma against flaunting falls within the same category as the stigma against covering, and views both as, â€Å"as much an assault on a gay individual’s civil rights as the 1981 case in which an African-American woman was fired by American Airlines for wearing her hair in cornrows† (Frey, â€Å"Introducing Kenji Yoshino†). This more specific form of forced assimilation only helps to further the idea that the majority is able to dictate â€Å"how gay† someone is able to act or

The Fujita Scale for Tornado Damage

Note: The U.S. National Weather Service has updated the Fujita Scale of tornado intensity to a new Enhanced Fujita Scale. The new Enhanced Fujita Scale continues to use F0-F5 ratings (shown below) but is based on a additional calculations of wind and damage. It was implemented in the United States on February 1, 2007. Tetsuya Theodore Ted Fujita (1920-1998) is famous for developing the Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale, a scale used to measure the strength of a tornado based on the damage it produces. Fujita was born in Japan and studied the damage caused by the atomic bomb in Hiroshima. He developed his scale in 1971 while working as a meteorologist with the University of Chicago. The Fujita Scale (also known as the F-Scale) typically consists of six ratings from F0 to F5, with damage rated as light to incredible. Sometimes, an F6 category, the inconceivable tornado is included in the scale. Since the Fujita Scale is based on damage and not really wind speed or pressure, it is not perfect. The primary problem is that a tornado can only be measured in the Fujita Scale after it has occurred. Secondly, the tornado can not be measured if there is no damage when the tornado occurs in an area without any features to be damaged. Nonetheless, the Fujita Scale has proven to be a reliable measurement of the strength of a tornado. Tornado damage needs to be examined by experts in order to assign a Fujita Scale rating to the tornado. Sometimes tornado damage appears worse than it actually is and sometimes, the media may overemphasize certain aspects of the damage tornadoes can cause. For example, straw can be driven into telephone poles at speeds as low as 50 mph. The Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale F0 - Gale With winds of less than 73 miles per hour (116 kph), F0 tornadoes are called gale tornadoes and cause some damage to chimneys, damage sign boards, and break branches off of trees and topple shallow-rooted trees. F1 - Moderate With winds from 73 to 112 mph (117-180 kph), F1 tornadoes are called moderate tornadoes. They peel surfaces off of roofs, push mobile homes off of their foundations or even overturn them, and push cars off of the road. F0 and F1 tornadoes are considered weak; 74% of all measured tornadoes from 1950 to 1994 are weak. F2 - Significant With winds from 113-157 mph (181-253 kph), F2 tornadoes are called significant tornadoes and cause considerable damage. They can tear the roofs off of light frame houses, demolish mobile homes, overturn railroad boxcars, uproot or snap large trees, lift cars off the ground, and turn light objects into missiles. F3 - Severe With winds from 158-206 mph (254-332 kph), F3 tornadoes are called severe tornadoes. They can tear the roofs and walls off of well-constructed houses, uproot the trees in a forest, overturn entire trains, and can throw cars. F2 and F3 tornadoes are considered strong and account for 25% of all tornadoes measured from 1950 to 1994. F4 - Devastating With winds from 207-260 mph (333-416 kph), F4 tornadoes are called devastating tornadoes. They level well-constructed houses, blow structures with weak foundations some distances, and turn large objects into missiles. F5 - Incredible With winds from 261-318 mph (417-509 kph), F5 tornadoes are called incredible tornadoes. They lift and blow strong houses, debark trees, cause car-sized objects to fly through the air, and cause incredible damage and phenomena to occur. F4 and F5 tornadoes are called violent and account for a mere 1% of all tornadoes measured from 1950 to 1994. Very few F5 tornadoes occur. F6 - Inconceivable With winds above 318 mph (509 kph), F6 tornadoes are considered inconceivable tornadoes. No F6 has ever been recorded and the wind speeds are very unlikely. It would be difficult to measure such a tornado as there would be no objects left to study. Some continue to measure tornadoes up to F12 and Mach 1 (the speed of sound) at 761.5 mph (1218.4 kph) but again, this a hypothetical modification of the Fujita Scale.

The legal and insurance implications of staging a concert....

Name: Steven Jackson Email: mcbsjackson@gmail.com Advanced Diploma in Event management Assessment no.4 The legal and insurance implications of staging a concert. Before staging a concert in a locality, there are some areas that need to be considered like: †¢ Organizational structure and legal status †¢ Event Ownership †¢ Contracts and agreements †¢ Licences and permission †¢ Insurance Organizational Structures There are five types of†¦show more content†¦A limited company has named directors whose financial liability is either limited by guarantee or by shares. Setting up this kind of organisation involves to comply additional costs and time in order to comply to the company law. ! Charitable Status Organisations with charitable purposes can apply for charitable status. Benefits include tax advantages and the ability to receive donations from charitable trusts. To qualify for a charitable status, the organisation need to deliver a clear educational or social benefit to the public. Event Ownership You must establish who actually owns the event and therefore has the various rights and liabilities associated with it. It must be clear if whether you have the right to enter into any contracts with third parties on behalf of the event. Sanctioning In some cases, it may be necessaryShow MoreRelatedInternal Revenue Code 1939278050 Words   |  1113 Pagesthe purpose of a more convenient and orderly arrangement of the same, and, therefore, no inference, implication or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion thereof, nor shall any outline, analysis, cross reference, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of said Title be given any legal effect. SEC. 7. EFFECT UPON SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION.—The enactment of this act shall not repeal norRead MoreContemporary Issues in Management Accounting211377 Words   |  846 PagesBusiness. His most recent books are A Conceptual Framework for Financial Accounting and Reporting: Vision, Tool or Threat? (Garland, 1997) and UK Life Insurance: Accounting for Business Performance (with Joanne Horton) (FT Finance, 1997). He is currently working (with Dr Joanne Horton at t he LSE) on a further research project on accounting for life insurance sponsored by the PD Leake Trust, and on various historical research projects including a book (with Professor Keith Hoskin of Warwick University)Read MoreExploring Corporate Strategy - Case164366 Words   |  658 Pagesand health care spending boomed as economies prospered. The pharmaceutical market developed some unusual characteristics. Decision making was in the hands of medical practitioners whereas patients (the ï ¬ nal consumers) and payers (governments or insurance companies) had little knowledge or inï ¬â€šuence. As a result, medical practitioners were insensitive to price but susceptible to the efforts of sales representatives. There were two important developments in the 1970s. First, the thalidomide tragedyRead MoreOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |   656 Pagesclimate change. Tucker concludes his rather pessimistic assessment of these key dimensions of the twentieth-century experience with cautionary explorations of key sources of our increased recognition and understanding of these processes and their implications for life on the planet, as well as with an overview of some of the measures that have been proposed for bringing them under control. Taken together, the thematic essays included in this collection provide the basis for fashioning a coherentRead MoreProject Mgmt296381 Words   |  1186 PagesWhat Is Organizational Culture? 79 Identifying Cultural Characteristics 82 Chapter 2 Organization Strategy and Project Selection 22 The Strategic Management Process: An Overview 24 Four Activities of the Strategic Management Process 26 Implications of Organizational Culture for Organizing Projects 84 Summary 87 Chapter 4 Defining the Project 100 102 Step 1: Defining the Project Scope 102 Employing a Project Scope Checklist Scenario Planning: A Supplement to Traditional StrategicRead MoreManaging Information Technology (7th Edition)239873 Words   |  960 PagesManagement 410 PART IV The Information Management System Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 517 Planning Information Systems Resources 519 Leading the Information Systems Function 536 Information Security 561 Social, Ethical, and Legal Issues 575 Glossary 668 Index 691 iii This page intentionally left blank CONTENTS Preface xvii Chapter 1 Managing IT in a Digital World 1 Recent Information Technology Trends 2 Computer Hardware: Faster, Cheaper, Mobile Read MoreLogical Reasoning189930 Words   |  760 Pages1962. That means that if they still have slaves it’s under the legal â€Å"radar.† a. The indicator is â€Å"That means† and the conclusion is that slavery in Saudi Arabia is under the legal â€Å"radar.† b. The indicator is â€Å"That means† and the conclusion is that slavery in Saudi Arabia was officially abolished in 1962. c. There is no conclusion indicator, but the conclusion is that if Saudi Arabia still has slaves, then it is under the legal â€Å"radar.† d. The indicator is â€Å"That means that if† and the conclusion

Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Free Essays

Dr. Jekyll of Robert Louis Stevenson’s novella Dr. Jekyll and Mr. We will write a custom essay sample on Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde or any similar topic only for you Order Now Hyde is a doctor who uses his laboratory to concoct a serum which turns him into his evil alter ego Hyde. Dr. Jekyll and Hyde come across as opposites however, they also have a similarity. Both Hyde and Jekyll share no sense of morality and have evil intentions. However, Hyde goes the extra mile and his physicality and actions are also evil. Hyde because of his deformity is expected to be evil and can therefore express his evil desires when he wishes. The difference between the two though is that Jekyll due to his appearance and social status has to hide his morale evilness. Hyde is someone composed of pure evilness. He has no morality, commits evil actions such as murder, and his appearance is pure evil. Hyde is described as â€Å"†¦something displeasing, something downright detestable†¦I never saw a man I so disliked†¦he gives a strong feeling of deformity†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (11). With word use like â€Å"displeasing,† â€Å"detestable,† and â€Å"deformity,† it’s easy to see why someone who sees the appearance of Hyde might make the assumption he’s capable of evil intentions, or he’s actually evil. To add to this, the statement said by Mr. Utterson, â€Å"†¦if ever I read Satan’s signature upon a face, it is not that of your new friend† (17) shows how evil he appears. It wouldn’t be considered out of the ordinary for someone who looks like Hyde to be caught doing something evil making him the perfect cover up for Jekyll. Jekyll due to his appearance and status in society has to use Hyde as a cover up for his evil intentions. Dr. Jekyll is described as â€Å"†¦a large, well made, smooth-faced man of fifty, with something of a slyish cast perhaps, but every mark of capacity and kindness†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (19). Jekyll’s description directs to him being handsome, and kind. His description added with the fact he’s a doctor makes it unable for him to express, or even have evil intentions in his life. This is because he’s a doctor, and doctors help people rather than harm them. Also his appearance leads those around him away from the thought of evil intentions because he’s so handsome and kind. However, this doesn’t mean that Jekyll isn’t in fact just as evil as Hyde. While Hyde performs evil actions like murder, it’s still Jekyll behind them. Hyde isn’t physically another body. Jekyll’s just hiding his evilness behind another identity of his with the help of a scientific transformation. Jekyll all along has had evil intentions. He just couldn’t express them due to the reactions and consequences he’d face. In his statement of the case, Jekyll says, â€Å"If each, I told myself, could but be housed in separate identities, life would be relieved of all that was unbearable; the unjust might go his way†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (49). Here Jekyll admits that he doesn’t want the consequences but wants the reward of committing evil actions. Jekyll says his life â€Å"†¦would be relieved of all that was unbearable,† (49) but â€Å"†¦the unjust might go his way.† What Jekyll would be relieved of is having to hold in his evil intentions. The unjust he’s describing is the consequences he’d face, and the â€Å"his way† he’s describing is another identity on which the consequences would fall. Hyde is just a personality, and with the help of a scientific transformation appears to be a different body, but is not. The original body is still Jekyll, and the body of Hyde is being run by the evil thoughts of Jekyll. While Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a story about good v.s. evil within Jekyll and Hyde, Jekyll is in fact also evil. His desire to commit evil actions by creating a new identity he can place the blame on is morally not right. Even if it was Jekyll’s alter ego Hyde committing the acts, Jekyll creating Hyde with the help of a scientific transformation allowed evil to be placed into the world with the intention something bad would happen is just as evil as committing the actions themselves. How to cite Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Papers

Arete in the republic Essay Example For Students

Arete in the republic Essay Plato is one of the greatest philosophers ever. Born in Athens, in 427 BC, and died in 347 BC. Socrates taught him. Socrates not only taught Plato, but was also Platos best friend. Socrates was put to death in 399 BC, because of his ideas. After Socrates death, Plato devoted his life to philosophy (Plato). In Platos book The Republic, the main focus is on justice, and trying to define what justice exactly is. In this book Socrates speaks Platos ideas. Through the Socratic method of trying to find a definition of justice, the theory of arete is often used, and is a central part of the book. Arete is the ability of something to do what it is supposed to do, and do it well. It is virtue, skill, and knowledge. The function of the soul is to live. The virtue (arete) of the soul is to live well. Through trying to define justice, Plato often uses the concept of arete. Thrasymachus says that justice is simply what the ruling party calls right or just. They call what is in the interest of the stronger party, or the rulers, justice (Grube 338c). Socrates responds by saying that the rulers should only by regarded in how well they perform their function. Their function being to serve the interest of the people which he rules, not his own interest (338c). Socrates says that everything has a function:The function of a pruning knife is to prune trees; the function of the eye is to see. Also, everything has a virtue; a virtue is a quality that makes something perform its function well. Thus, sharpness is the virtue of a knife; sight is the virtue of the eye. Now the function of man is to live. What, then, is his virtue? Well we agreed that injustice is a source of disunity and chaos; so it is a defect. Its opposite, justice, must there fore be a virtue, if not the only virtue, of man. But without its virtue, a thing cannot perform its function well. So without justice, a man cannot live well. And if he cannot live well, he cannot be happy. Injustice, then, cannot bring happiness. With out even using the word arete, he has just defined its concept (Cliffs 16). When trying to organize his state Socrates is describing what the state will need in order to be just. He says that each man will be assigned the job that he is best suited for. Each man will only get one job, so he can devote his life to that job, and do it well (Grube 369a-370c). They will need farmers, builders, and tailors, among others. But they will also need someone to make the tools for these people, in order for them to perform their tasks well (Cliffs 23). The guardians of the state have an extremely important job. For them to be able to perform their task well, they have to be selected and trained very carefully. They have to be courageous, and strong. They need to know when, and when not to attack. They must have knowledge and a love of knowledge in order to be able to discriminate well. These guardians are not just soldiers. They are the leaders of the state. They must have a philosophic temperament (Cliffs 23-28). In order for the guardians to perform their task well, they must be very carefully educated and trained. While they are children Socrates wants them to learning of the gods, and heroes. But he does not want them to learn the stories in which the gods commit murders and crimes. He is afraid that this may corrupt them. They must also never learn of stories, which will make them afraid of death. So they must never learn of the afterlife, and the underworld. They must only learn of the stories that will have good moral affects on them (Grube 392a-c). In other words, Plato uses censorship as an educational and persuasive tool. .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2 , .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2 .postImageUrl , .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2 , .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2:hover , .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2:visited , .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2:active { border:0!important; } .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2:active , .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2 .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u7a6fb8cb70ebafb18f0ba96cd56104e2:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: ============================================================ Medicine: EssayThe guardians are then divided into two groups. The rulers, who will govern the state, and the auxiliaries, who will assist the rulers and enforce their decisions. The rulers will consist only of the very best guardians. They are the older wiser men. All of their actions must be directed toward the community as a whole (Cliffs 28-30). The rest of the community is the craftsmen, or all the rest of the citizens who do not govern or protect the state. This group consists of the doctors, farmers, and laborers. These three classes have the four great virtues: wisdom, courage, discipline (temperance), and justice. Wisdom is found in the ruling class. For they judge what is right and wrong, good and bad. Courage is found in the auxiliaries. Discipline (temperance) does not fit into any one class alone. Discipline is a mastery of ones self; and is found in the way the classes relate to each other. Justice can only be found when the three prior virtues are there. And the three prior virtues can only be found when everyone does their jobs, and does them well (Cliffs 34). This has defined a just state. A just man is also very closely defined. There are three parts of the mind, and these relate to the three classes of the state. Reason corresponds to the rulers. Emotion corresponds to the auxiliaries. And desire corresponds to the craftsmens class. The four cardinal virtues will again only be present if the three parts of the mind perform their function well. Wisdom comes from wise reasoning, in the reasoning part of the mind. Courage comes from a courageous emotional mind. Discipline again does not fit into any one part, but only comes when the other tow parts interact well with each other. A mans reason must be in charge of his emotions and desires (Grube 434d-435a). Justice again is only present when the other three parts of the mind perform their functions well. They must all play their proper functions and not interfere with each other. Justice in the mind is like health in the body. A just man is one whose mind is in good order; A healthy man is one whose body is in good order. (Cliffs 38-39)Socrates has now said that a philosopher will make the best ruler. A philosopher will always be able to administer justice and act for the good of the community. A philosopher will always be honest and forthright. They will be well disciplined and not give into bodily desires. Money and possessions will not matter to them. They will not be cowardly. They will poses all four cardinal virtues. They will be best able to rule the state, and rule it well (Cliffs 41-44). He also goes on to say that to grow up to be a good ruler, their lives must be divided into six stages, as a child. Up until the age of 18 they will learn a small amount of mathematics, warfare, and watch battles. Then the best of that group will go through intense physical and military training for two-three years. The best of that group is now chosen and will take an advanced mathematics course, for ten years. Those not chosen from this group will form the auxiliary class. At the age of 30 after the mathematics course is completed, another selection is made. The best of this group will study dialectic for five years. At the age of 35 they will be philosophers. They will then have to receive practical experience. At the age of 50 they are now fully formed philosophy rulers (Grube 535a-540a). This process will enable the rulers to do their job well, which will in turn enable everyone they rule to do their jobs well, and to live well. .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6 , .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6 .postImageUrl , .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6 , .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6:hover , .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6:visited , .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6:active { border:0!important; } .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6:active , .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6 .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u9c05839936e347a972f3b7bcb4fc73c6:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: The Effects of Anabolic Steroids EssayThe concept of arete is not hard to understand, but it is hard to put into words. Although he never uses the word arete in his book, Plato does put it into words, just by trying to define justice. Bibliography:WORKS CITED1.Cliffs notes on. PLATOS THE REPUBLIC. Lincoln, Nebraska:19972.Grube, G.M.A.(translated by). Plato REPUBLIC. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, INC. 19923.Plato. Comptons Interactive Encyclopedia.99.Dec 2, 1999

Leadership Strategic Leadership in a Changing World

Question: Describe about the Strategic Leadership in a Changing World? Answer: Before getting into the detailed study of Van Jones, we must know what is strategic leadership? Strategic leadership is one of the leadership styles which gives the image and the route to the growth and success of the organization (Clayton). Every executive in any organization needs the tools and skills for both strategy formulation and its implementation. It is the approach taken by the management of a company where all the aspects of the leadership are lined up with the business objectives and strategy (Jones). Anthony Kapel Van Jones, an American environmental advocate, attorney and civil rights activist, is a co-founder of four NPO, was born in September 20, 1968. He founded a national advocacy organization named Rebuild the Dream, which works towards to make a fairer economy. He was then appointed by the President of United States to a newly formed position Special Advisor for the Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality where he worked on improving the vulnerable communities (Lipman-Blumen). In strategic leadership the leaders allow themselves to contemplate strategically where they can effectively navigate the unknown. Van Jones knows how to collaborate, influence and integrate power to lead organizations effectively. The success of his leadership depended on the judicious and equivalent alignment of operations, corporate culture and strategy (Mburu). There are seven principles of strategic leadership in changing the world related to Van Jones can be put in the following way: Strategic leaders have future strategy and are future oriented. Strategic leaders have the ability to get things done. Strategic leaders are very fit to lead. Strategic leaders are research led and are based on evidence. Strategic leaders have the ability to open new horizons. Strategic leaders make good partners. Strategic leaders do the next thing right. There are many evidences and studies from Van Jones life which we will throw some light on. There are many people who fought against the brutality of police. Although, it is very tough to solve this problem but many people are still fighting against it. We cannot always find justice in these cases because many people cannot survive these brutal cases. Van Jones has dedicated his life against the issue of police brutality since there was an incident in his life which acted as a turning point and made him protest. In the incident the police had brutalized and abused a young man and mercilessly left him to die, this mad Van Jones made built an organization where he can raise his voice against this issue and those police who torture the people. He started PoliceWatch which led a successful campaign in which they fired Marc Andaya who was accused of in-custody death of a black man who was unarmed. This certified referral portal helped in tracking problem precincts, officers, practices in just a click, which then identifies the offenders and troublemakers (Jones and Conrad). Van participated in the protest of Rodney King verdict as a legal monitor. He along with many other protestors was arrested and the district attorney put charges against Jones. He said that the activism was encouraged by seeing the racial discrimination. In the year 1996, Van Jones founded Ella Baker Centre an umbrella NGO. It is an action centre and a non-profit strategy centre. The aim of this centre is to work for peace, justice and opportunity in the urban America. It is named after an activist Ella Baker. This centre exclusively works in the course of four movements so as to break the sequence of the violence in the urban area. It also entitles to end the disinvestment in the cities and the excessive racist policy. It also calls for better and clean environment, schools and many prospects for the people. In October 2008, he released one of his books named The Green Collar Economy where he defines the issues which are big enough that the country is facing and will face (Jones, Conrad and Kennedy). He began promoting environmental justice and eco-capitalism. The campaign of Green Collar jobs was an effort to improve the economic and racial equality with the desire to alleviate the concerns of the environment. Van Jones is in favor of the combination of regulation, conservation and investment as the way to encourage environmental justice and oppose the environmental racism. At an interview he told that this is a third wave of environmentalism which makes the Teddy Roosevelt conservation era the first wave. He said that we are proceeding to an era where our survival will demand innovation and invention on the scale that anybody has ever seen before. So the success and our survival are directly attached to new eco-entrepreneurs. Jones marketing campaign's grassroots nature led to calling it a victory for the entire green-collar jobs movement. In the year 2009 it was declared that Jones will serve as the Special Advisor at the White House Council for Environmental Quality. He worked under the administration of Barrack Obama which resulted into $5050 million for the training of green job. He has worked as the advisor and helped administer the inter-agency procedure that directed $75 billion in the recovery spending of green energy. Jones received many criticisms from the media for his past activities in politics which included his involvement in STORM; this made him resign from his position. References Clayton, Helena. 'The Changing Leadership Landscape'. Strategic HR Review 11.2 (2012): 78-83. Web. Jones, Van, and Ariane Conrad. Rebuild The Dream. New York: Nation Books, 2012. Print. Jones, Van, Ariane Conrad, and Robert Francis Kennedy. The Green-Collar Economy. New York: HarperOne, 2008. Print. Jones, Van. Strategic Solutions For Business Economics. [S.l.]: Mcgraw-Hill Primis Custom, 2003. Print. Lipman-Blumen, Jean. Connective Leadership. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print. Mburu, Antony. Strategic Leadership. Colne: Lap Lambert Academic Pub., 2010. Print.