On the other hand, other coworkers would not report her so, they could have power over her by blackmailing but this action is against American Correctional Association Code of Ethics, as well. “Members shall treat every professional situation with concern for the welfare of the individuals involved and with no intent to personal gain,” suggesting they are not treating coworkers with respect but to only achieve ‘personal gain’. This action breaks the creed which every correction officer protects which is un-honorable. I believe the best decision is to report her this action will protect myself as well as her in future altercations legally or dealing with
This policy was the exact opposite of his license obligations that stated he was to report any crimes and felonies he saw. The policy forced David to into a moral dilemma where he had to choose whether to abide by Blue Mountain’s rules or to obey the police unit’s rules. As an employee David had a moral obligation to his company as well as to the other stakeholders. David`s had a responsibility to be loyal to his company as well as to keep the other stakeholders safe. In this situation the policy was unethical because it risked the safety of all other stakeholders and enabled criminal
As soon as I have been informed that a member of staff has been threatened, these would be the steps I would follow to protect the member of staff. • Have the staff member attend a meeting to find out what the threat is weather a personal threat from another staff member or an external threat. • Find out where the threat was made i.e. face to face or through a form of social media or email. • Depending on the threat if it’s an internal threat from a staff member I would inform Human Resources, just in case we need to follow up with any disciplinary actions.
A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made. The exclusionary rule allows criminals to go because evidence was illegally obtained, but what about the victims of the crimes. It is almost a turntable and they have become a victim for a second time. I am going to discuss the three main reasons why we as citizens should get rid of the rule. One is the releasing the guilty back into society, next is the slowing down of the criminal process and the last thing is the behavior and consequence of the police officers involved in the cases.
One of the most common arguments deals with respecting the Constitution. Racial profiling should be eliminated in routine traffic stops because it leads to a violation of civil rights, poor relationships between police officers and citizens, and decreased urban safety. Racial profiling violates citizens’ rights in a few different ways. The fourth amendment reads, “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”, as recited by West Des Moines’ police captain, Scott Wiegert. A traffic stop on the basis of race violates the fourth amendment because the officer can make the victim feel violated instead of secure.
Not only do full body scanners violate a citizen’s privacy and work inefficiently, but prejudice accusations and the cost of these machines also play an important role in whether these are necessary. Opponents of full body scanners have many vital points to why full body scanners are wrong; one being the fact that it violates an individual’s privacy. Defenders of the scanner state that it is just a reflexive image of the traveler, that it is seen only by that airport official, and then it is disposed, keeping this information private. The Electronic Privacy Information Center and the American Civil Liberties Union said that the scanners will violate Americans’ privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Body scanners that peer through clothes are deployed in airports across the country.
Also, technology and managerial efforts’ failures are conceivable and it can be crucial in certain circumstances. Similarly, judges’ plan for placing yard signs is somewhat raise negative signal in the criminals, who wants to overcome his guilt. As a result, he would isolate himself from the society, and which in turn will produce negative outcomes. Then again, for the public safety, it is necessary to ratify different security mechanism despite the presence of moral and legitimate issues. So, it would be healthy to trace and map criminal’s residence to avoid potential threats of
| They assume they have the duty to take action that may override the demands of law, religion, and social customs. | This issue was chosen because our freedoms regarding personal privacy continually become blurred by private parties and various law enforcement agencies for what they deem to be the greater good. This presents a plethora of ethical contradictions and violates our rights as citizens of the United States. Is it a violation of your spouse's privacy if you install logging software if you suspect them of cheating? Should law enforcement bend the law in order to protect it?
Describe an important idea and explain how the director used visual and verbal features to convey the idea It is the government is accountable for protecting its citizens from external threats, but sometimes it is the government itself is a threat to society .Tony Scott’s Enemy of the states conveys the idea that we need to protect our privacy from government surveillance. He does this through the use of visual and verbal features. During the Daniel Zavitts chase scene, Scott employed tilted horizon and hand held camera. The tilt gives us a sense of unease because it makes it feel like the world has been tipped off its axis. Zavitts is panicking as he is running from the N.S.A Agents; we feel this panic through the tilt.
In Cunningham v McGrath Borthers Kingsmill Moore J stated that any obstruction of the public highway is a public nuisance. A public nuisance may also be created by carry on trade which causes discomfort to the general public as seen in AG v PYA Quarries . Here blasting and other quarrying operations gave rise to a nuisance. However, a member of the public can bring a nuisance action where the nuisance caused them particular damage over and above that suffered by others. This was well shown in Boyd v Great Northern Railway where a doctor sued for public nuisance because he was delayed on the train which amounted in him suffering particular damage.