Many of these factors boil down to personal beliefs and value systems. We were challenged to look at several examples of good Samaritans, vigilantism, civil disobedience and crimes among professionals. As a team we had to compare our value systems with those who had been involved in each of these situations. In the Good Samaritan cases, we had a general consensus that we would like to be a Good Samaritan. In the vigilantism cases, although we could all relate to the frustration involved for the actors, we all agree that one must stay within the bounds of the law to seek out justice.
This style of communication involves mutual influence and can be defined as a distinctive and transactional form of communication between individuals, usually with the purpose of maintaining relationships (Beebe, Beebe & Redmond 2014). Productive interpersonal communication is necessary for mutual understanding and satisfaction to be achieved between lawyers and their clients. Feedback is a communication skill, used as a response to a message, which encompasses written, spoken and unspoken communication elements, to which people assign meaning. Without this skill, communication becomes a struggle, reducing its effectiveness, which, can have devastating consequences for the relationship between lawyers and clients, and the progression of the case. Feedback is implemented for the purpose of either gaining additional information, or as a confirmation that a message has been received correctly (Beebe, Beebe & Redmond 2014).
The purpose of this paper is to induce thought of the legal system. It is also meant to help one reflect on themselves and be guided by their own moral compass. Many beneficiaries have been unfortunate enough to discover that a testator’s steps have failed to comply with the law. In certain situations, failure can sometimes carry a heavy price. A good example of this is the case of the Estate of Saueressig v. Goff.
Furthermore, the idea of conscience can be limited through feelings such as guilt. Our actions may be influence if we feel guilty about something. For instance, telling a friend what they want to hear rather than the actual truth. Similarly, some political laws will limit our conscience as we have no choice but to live by them. It is argued that if we yield to this pressure it limits our
separate the people from the problem Separating the people from the problem means separating relationship issues (or "people problems") from substantive issues, and dealing with them independently. People problems tend to involve problems of perception, emotion, and communication. Perceptions are important because they define the problem and the solution. While there is an "objective reality," that reality is interpreted differently by different people in different situations. When different parties have different understandings of their dispute effective negotiation may be very difficult to achieve.
The rational choice theory focuses on a cost and benefits decision made by a person to maximise personal advantage and how laws and a consistent, robust justice system needed to ensure crime is less appealing. This theory focused on cognitive ability, leaning towards the predestined actor model, whereby rational choice and decision making is often dependant on a person’s psychological setup and as such a rational person with a different background and cognitive capacity may interpret the same situation differently than another person due to factors that don’t immediately present themselves. Cognitive behaviour programmes try and modify how a person thinks and acts to prevent them from offending or reoffending. The rational choice theory suggests that for an offence to take place a suitable target of an offence is needed,
Debates about punishment are important in their own right, but they also raise more general problems about the proper standards for evaluating social practices. The main part of this theoretical overview of the subject of legal punishment concentrates on these issues of justification. That discussion is preceded by an analysis of the concept of punishment and is followed by a brief account of how theories for justifying punishment can relate to decisions about the substantive criminal law and criminal procedures. The concept of punishment Punishment is not an exclusive province of the law. Parents punish their children, and members of private associations punish their wayward fellows.
In the civil system of courts the parties are also adverse to each other, however instead of arguing against each other, each party provides the evidence to the judge whom will then ask the questions and from there may decide the outcome of the case. These processes are known as inquisitorial due to the nature of the ‘inquisition’ by the judge. Controversy has arisen as to which system of trial provides society with the favoured ‘justice.’ It has been argued that the adversary system is favoured over the inquisitorial system as the personal biases of a judge in the conduct of a case are less obvious. Many people claim that such a system does not achieve justice, as juries, in particular, can be convinced by the quality of the barristers’ legal arguments, rather than actual evidence. Alternatively, the inquisitorial system may be said to provide better justice in that a judge has a broader range of possibilities to ask wider and deeper questions, and can therefore gather information that the parties did not intend to expose.
This proves that CSOs are capable of bringing changes on different levels that help protect the vulnerable from threats and develop their rights. Pressure from domestic audience On a smaller scale, the pressure from domestic population plays a deciding factor on securitising threats as well. Governments, needing to maintain legitimacy with its people, would have to address threats faced by its people. If there are issues that threatens the human security of the people, it is likely that protests and riots will be started. If the matters continue to be disregarded, the government would then face threats on their own accountability to the people and their right to rule.
There are a lot reasons for people to cheat, but that doesn't mean we have to cheat; instead, we need to make efforts to stop cheating. What are the reasons for people to cheat? Different people answer this question in different ways. Some try to analyze the reasons for cheating from social point of view. Others try to find the answers psychologically and morally.