Either denying the act occurred or denying responsibility for it should be effective in restoring credibility in the public eye. However, if rational proof exists to prove the party is responsible, simple denial would not be a wise strategy. Another form of denial is shifting the blame. In this technique, the accused diverts attention to another party in an attempt to absolve their guilt. This strategy is effective because not only is the guilty party exonerated, but the audience’s
Q: The jury believes the expert testimony presented for plaintiffs. Why did their judgment not stand? Their judgment could stand because one of the parties believed that there was an error of law; some areas that can include mistakes about the substantive law that was made during the trial. Bases for appeal include failure by the trial judge to admit or exclude certain evidence, improper instruction being given to the jury, and the granting or denying the motion to dismiss the case. Usually the party appealing must show that the mistake would have affected the outcome.
Meaning that the authority that was elected by the society had to be beneficial to the society; as well as the right and wrong actions depended on the effect that these actions had on the unhappiness and happiness of an individual. The Enlightenment was also based on logic and humaneness was coming in to the picture. First of all, Baccaria’s saw torture as inadequate criminal justice procedures, since torture was adopted as a common technique to determine whether an individual was guilty or innocent through use of pain. This in Baccaria’s eyes is deemed as useless. Since the tortured party can be proven guilty or innocent based on their pain tolerance, if an individual who has committed a crime and is being tortured however their pain tolerance is very high and they are able to take the pain they may be judged as innocent, however if and individual is innocent or guilty has a low pain tolerance and is not able to cope with the pain and confesses then it no longer matters whether he committed the crime or not, thus making
Many of them are about being aware of the impact of decisions on one’s own feeling of protection. It can be considered to be self-serving and callous. Because the problem with this is that his theory is overwhelmingly cruel. Throuhgout the text, it can easily be observed that he supports the regime of violence so as to maintain power. For example, according to Machiavelli, it may be necessary to be violent towards disobedient people and Machiavelli(1532) says “The prince should make himself feared in a such way that, if he is not loved, at least
When the client’s and advocate’s values are consonant, the advocate can easily pursue the aims of the client. But what happens when their values clash? In fact, value conflicts between clients and advocates are quite common. Sometimes the conflicts relate to methods of advocacy; for instance, a client wants the advocate to fight in a manner that inflames conflict, while the advocate values the peaceful resolution of conflict. Other times, the values conflict relates to differences over the goal of advocacy: a client asks an advocate to argue in favor of capital punishment, whereas the professional values the sanctity of life.
Both King and Thoreau discuss civil disobedience and when it is just to break unfair laws. Another topic they discussed is the merit of authority, and how they were disappointed by the action the majority takes towards certain issues. Henry Thoreau mostly emphasizes on how civil disobedience is important because he believes that governments should consider everybody's opinions. Both have the same common logic, but they express their views in a completely different manner. King uses better emotional appeals so that his audience feels compelled to his cause, King also uses figurative language to create a powerful tone that provides his essay with a meaningful effect; while Thoreau uses more ethos and common logic.
Civil disobedience is most justifiable when prior lawful attempts to rectify the situation have failed; and when the acts of civil disobedience are done to force the society to recognize the problem; when performed openly and publicly; and when the actor will accept the punishment. Many proponents urge that civil disobedience be used only in the most extreme cases, arguing that the Constitution provides many opportunities to voice one's grievances without breaking the law. Opponents of civil disobedience see
Another weakness is the consequences, in some situations when consequences are too severe that many think it is better to break a rule than allow awful thing to happen. The theory is too rigid, sometimes the consequences can change the rightness or a wrongness of an action, but in this theory the person is judged on the action which can be unfair. It’s inflexible as you should be able to break a rule if the individual’s circumstances warrant it. There is no consideration to human emotion, there are situation where individuals break rules because of emotions, for example if a person is scared they may lie to protect themselves which in Kant’s eyes this would be morally wrong. The theory is a priori, some claim we out our duty a priori but it is also argued we need to refer to experience to work out what is right.
Although all of the previously stated authors make strong arguments in their essays, some of their larger interpretations are flawed. An excessive emphasis on individualism in a society serves merely to bring detrimental effects to the society as a whole; while at the same time, a lack of stress on individualism can have equally damaging effects. Foremost, in order to contextualize individualism in the realm of society, it is pertinent to appositely define individualism. The term ‘individualism’ refers to the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence, in addition to the ability to rely on one’s inner beliefs to discriminate between right and wrong. The genuine definition of individualism, however, is not the issue of debate.
As well as potential resistance to change by employees, it is worthwhile acknowledging that organizations may face resistance to change from other groups such as suppliers, distributors, stakeholders and consumers. The common theme binding all of them being, we argue, a naïve and managerialist assumption that resistance is counterproductive – even irrational – behavior which needs to be overcome. Resistance is an inevitable response to any major change. Individuals naturally rush to defend the status quo if they feel their security or status is threatened. Folger & Skarlicki (1999, p. 25) claim that "organizational change can generate skepticism and resistance in employees, making it sometimes difficult or impossible to implement organizational improvements".