University of Phoenix Material Ethical Dilemma Worksheet Incident Review 1. What is the ethical issue or problem? Identify the issue succinctly. | The ethical issue is that the male individual has committed repeated offenses and is in line to receive a maximum sentence for his actions. However he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and runs the risk of even further regression with the possibility of imprisonment.
This not only is against the policy and procedures set forth by the hospital but also is a HIPAA violation. “For obvious reasons, this scenario illuminates numerous HIPAA violations, the potentiality for breaches, and the intentional acts that increase the severity of the violations and thereby induce the possibility of self-reported HIPAA violations (Vivian, 2009; Moskop. et. al., 2006, p. 54). Whereas, the dividing line between those HIPAA violations and the potentiality of privacy breaches, data or information security and intent are murky, this incidence necessitates action (Vivian, 2009).
Intentional Tort M230/HSC2641 October 20, 2013 Robert Feightner Intentional Tort Intentional tort is a deliberate or premeditated injury that is inflicted on one person by another individual. It can be separated into six categories, which are assault, battery, false imprisonment, defamation of character, fraud, and invasion of privacy. A person who is suffering from those injuries whether it is mental or physical injuries can file for a tort case, which may result in monetary damages. However, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff duty of care, caused their injuries, to include, failed to provide proper standard of care (Pearson Education, 2010). An example of intentional tort under the category battery
The Degree of Disadvantage: Incarceration and Inequality in Education. Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social science, 651(1), 24.doi; 10.1177100027162.135503100 Fauchon, C. (2004).The Case against Profiling. International Social Science Review, 79(3) (4), 157-159. Howell, K. (2011). Criminal Law Issue: Featured Contributors: Fear Itself: The Impact of Allegations of Gang Affiliation On-Pretrial Detention.
Criminal Jurisdiction A criminal jurisdiction and law enforcement concern establishes a massive break for state-tribal collaboration. Criminal jurisdiction on ethnic grounds may be puzzling vicinity of regulation. It could require three diverse provinces (federal, state, and tribal) and should take into description issues extra aspects for example, the individuality of the criminal, the identity of the fatality, precise category of crime that is was committed, and the vicinity of the offense (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011). The present jurisdictional agenda has created conditions in which no particular administration has the power to implement occupied province, missing supportive agreement. The confusion and possible jurisdictional gaps have contributed to the excessively elevated offense rates and under-prosecution of crimes, which harmful influence inhabitant and habitant people equally (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011).
This paper will then end with the current state of the insanity defense and conclusions of this research. History of the Insanity Defense Pre-McNaughton Today, the insanity defense is an affirmative defense, this means the defendant must raise the argument that they are insane, and if they were found insane, it would negate the elements of a crime. The burden of proof is also on the defendant and the defendant must prove the defense of insanity by “clear and convincing evidence”[1] (Garner, 2001). The insanity defense has evolved over centuries. People have always believed that it is immoral to punish a person who is not responsible for their criminal behavior, because if a person does not know what they are doing at the time of a crime they should not have to be punished for it.
Simpson case is vital to the study of criminal justice and prosecution being that the restrictions that were obvious in the testimonies of the witnesses and evidence. As a consequence incorrect verdicts were made regarding the case for the reasons that there was evidence that could not be used like the blood samples and the detectives that gave testimonies that were ambiguous. Furthermore, before any case is taken to trial the state and the defense need to be absolutely certain that they have sufficient evidence in order to maintain their case, especially since a case can be dismissed based on the prima facie evidence provided. Studying this case has certainly changed my perspective because it was obvious that more was needed to be accomplished previous to closing remarks were
Introduction¬ Originated in an exceptionally strict sense, the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness (or irrationality) allowed the review and quashing of an administrative action which is “so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.” Being aware of the court’s limited jurisdiction in intervening an Executive act, Lord Greene MR in the Wednesbury case clearly stated that the court’s concern was still to examine whether the authority had contravened the law by acting in excess of powers which Parliament has confided with them, and the unreasonableness principle can only be used “in a strictly limited class of case”. The stringency of the test can be seen by the fact that it was itself not passed in that case and many subsequent cases. However throughout the century, when more and more cases tend to invoke the Wednesbury principle and especially in many human rights cases, unreasonableness might be the only way that an Executive act is attackable, issues as to whether the strictness of the orthodox approach should be softened arose. The softened approach is commonly named as the “anxious scrutiny approach”, which came from Lord Bridge’s description that if a fundamental human right is put at risk by a decision, “the basis of the decision must surely call of the most anxious scrutiny” . Approach taken in the Given Cases – “Anxious Scrutiny Unreasonableness” In Society for Protection of Harbour , Wednesbury unreasonableness was not a major issue.
(Freud) Aggressive & violent behaviours? (Observational learning: Abusers - foster parents) From the painful & traumatic childhood Will had, perhaps that was his way of:- getting a sense of power (from the powerless situation he was in with the abuses he had) getting attention( from the neglect & lack of attention he had with foster parents?) indirect, non-verbal “call-out” that he had been tremendously hurt & abused low self efficacy? (Albert Bandura) Q3) To include the following factors: Counselling session with the psychologist & hypnotist To elaborate: Failure of the counselling sessions was not only attributed from the therapists but also from Will who had consciously & deliberately put up resistance, barrier & shield from them getting deeper into his
The challenge is identifying the real actors in play and the assumptions of ineffective criminal justice policies when it comes to deterring terrorism. There were allegations for instance of involvement of individuals in the 9/11 terrorist attacks that in reality were not existent. There is a lot of confusion when it comes to these matters of great security concerns and the parties involved. The structures of the security and the criminal justice organizations is so perplexed and complicated that a review of the policies and regulations is necessary to avoid allegations that have no stable