An offender would need a Guarantor to pay his fine should he be unable to pay. If an offender could not pay nor get a Guarantor, he would find himself isolated from his tribe in the lowest caste of society. The lowest caste did not have civil rights and may not have been allowed to participate in some religious rites. Further, an offender would not be allowed to continue with their profession nor work in any position of trust. The Celts would not actually punish an offender nor stand in the way of redemption, in fact this was encouraged but it would be solely down to the offender to earn his way back into his tribe.
The Celt's had a highly developed sense of rights and duties and this would be measured in caste's. Those who had transgressed against the law, would have lost all their rights and privileges and seen as the lowest caste. Offenders would also be prohibited from being employed in any position of trust or practising a profession. There were no prisons in Celtic Britain and it was up to the individual to redeem themselves. The isolation an offender felt would of been greater than that felt in today's prisons and therefore the offender would be reluctant to repeat the experience and also act as a deterrent to others.
Punishment has taken many different forms throughout history. This essay looks at how punishment of offenders today has elements of Celtic and Roman approaches. According to Celtic philosophy of punishment, deterrence was used as a measure to prevent people from committing an offence as it is today. In Celtic times honour amongst the kinship was important and criminals were cast the lowest social status losing this honour and civil privilege. This loss of privilege still pertains to Britain today and although our prisons provide the incapacitation of offenders, social isolation in Celtic times had similar impact with loss of property, profession, religious rites and confinement to the tribal territory suffering their dishonour within their community.
Thus, the illegal immigrants should be punished through deporting back to their native country if within the period of time the they are here, they have just being slack off or breaking the laws such as stealing, etc. Then, they have no reason to say that the US didn’t give them the chance to be its resident, but it’s just their own fault. Illegal immigration should be eliminated, but the immigrants themselves should be treated with more understanding, instead of negative reactions. If every country is great as US (a free country), then the issue would not even come up. Freedom is always something that everyone want to have, some have it, some do not.
Because the law of the foreign country is the only law that can be enforceable contracts are only as good as the backing of the country's backing and are only binding in that instance. A country can stop all transactions from that business if they file lawsuit on that country (Melvin, 2011). What factors could work against CadMex's decision to grant sublicensing agreements? An organization that has too many sublicensing agreements and does not have sufficient sub paragraphs could find difficulties enforcing the sublicensing agreement. The organization could experience lawsuits if any of the contracted workers have any problems and could leave the organization liable for damages When the local customs and laws conflict with the customs and laws of an organization operating abroad which should prevail?
It is for this reason that I would return the money, if I were in that situation. As discussed during class, it is not generally something that I would be able to see making the headlines and showing myself in a positive light and in addition, I would not want to disclose that information to my family. Even though the check was accidentally given to them rather than Global Banking Investments, they are still obligated to return it to the person or entity that it belongs to. They have no real ownership over the money and no right to keep it. It is ethically wrong for them to keep it, regardless of if they were let go from the company.
They could have explained to the managers that immediate termination is not the proper form of discipline for the offenses mentioned. They would have also told them that all employees involved would have to have the same disciplinary action taken to show that they are not being bias to some employees and not others. By law, generally, we go by legislation, statutes, and regulations made by states and by the federal government on multiple subjects for the good of the public and public welfare. “Laws do not, and are not intended to, incorporate ethical principles or values, but sometimes ethical standards will be reflected in laws.” (The Importance of Ethics in Criminal Justice. ( n.d. ) p. 12).
Injustice is basically when somebody has been wronged and when adding collector is when somebody has been wronged many times over their life. Society in my opinion cannot protect themselves against these types of people because we have no way of knowing who they are. For all we know our teachers or best friend could be just like Cho, but we will never know until they lash out. The only possible way would to mandate a law requiring everybody to never wrong anybody in the world, which as we all know could not be
This is human nature at its worse if, we get angry at someone and shut down the lines of communication, we will avoid them, and eventually we cease to be willing to even work with that person. With the same responsibilities being shared there is sense of competitionamong private and public forces. The private force wants to show there assertiveness, and ability not to be out done. They also feel the need for competiveness, if they are not involved in anissue they may appear to not be doing their job and lose the account. Private security agencies must constantly be promoting themselves by proving the local police, and even direct competitors cannot provide the same level of protection or services.
This has worried human rights activists as such active surveillance will erode the freedom of ordinary people. Such forms of surveillance is more of a restriction to the people’s rights and choices to act freely, confining them to agree with the Government, never to question them. Such is an act of oppression that does not work in the ‘best interest’ of the people. By Locke’s take on the social contract, since the State has “ceased to uphold its end of the” social contract, the people own the right to revolt and overthrow the (State)” which “makes the contract void”3. The State, is therefore stripped of its right to interfere with the private lives of