I’m studying for my Law class and don’t understand how to answer this. Can you help me study?
- Substantive justice binds and curbs a person’s behavior according to the law. It focuses on creating a fair system to be followed at all steps of the legal process. Substantive law is more straightforward as it states the laws and rights of the people involved. It differs from procedural law as that focuses on the ways of enforcing substantive law. It creates the rules of the court that are to be followed as well as emphasizing the rights of each person in court. Procedural law also differs as it can be used in non-legal contexts where substantive cannot be used in that case. Substantive law is more about defining the law, while procedural law is more about explaining the law. Substantive can be seen as what the law defines, such as it being illegal to drink and drive, while procedural is the steps that need to be taken in order to charge the person with the crime.There are two types of substantive law, retributive and utilitarian justice. Retributive justice is “The component of justice that concerns the determination and methods of punishment” (Pollock, 64). This means the person who committed the crime should face a similar suffering to the suffering they created. Utilitarian justice is focused on only punishing a person if society thinks that it will serve good to the person and community. This means that a person facing charges for robbery should not be punished the same as an individual for murder. It focuses on the right amount of time served necessary to try and prevent them from doing the crime again.Due process is a part of procedural justice as “An individual has the right to due process whenever the government seeks to deprive that person of the protected rights of life, liberty, or property” (Pollock, 69). Due process helps to seek justice in an appropriate way. The Saint Leo University core value of integrity can be applied to substantive and procedural justice. Integrity is about honesty, morality, and justice. It can relate to one’s character as well as the law. It relates back to substantive and procedural law as it is about being fair and providing the correct punishment where necessary.
Describe how organizations can become corrupt, according to Trautman’s “Corruption Continuum.” Has noted in our text in any organization, there are those who will always make ethical choices, those who will usually make unethical ones, and those who may be influenced one way or the other, Trautman (2008). Our text also clearly notes those who make ethical choices should be recognized and rewarded to send an organizational message. However, agency leaders should mentor and foster ethical behavior to encourage ethical decisions. Examples, would be to promote ethical and professional administrators. To reward those with morally courageous behavior. Additionally, create clear and precise agency policies that emphasize worthwhile goals and honest means Trautman (2008).Trautman (2008) describes a “Corruption Continuum” which details how organizations can become corrupt through the actions of its leaders. Unfortunately, this has been accomplished by ignoring obvious ethical problems, and creating a hypocrisy and fear dominated culture. Agency leaders and managers have to take action and solely by not engaging in corrupt practices themselves will not solve the issue. They must take affirmative steps to encourage ethical actions Trautman (2008). For this discussion I will find fitting Integrity and Community as is define in our Saint Leo University core values. Has Integrity is the commitment to excellence demands that its members live its mission and deliver on its promise. And Community is
we foster a spirit of belonging, unity, and interdependence based on mutual trust and respect to create socially responsible environments that challenge all of us to listen, to learn, to change, and to serve. I believe this is applicable to law enforcement agencies since as an organization they should be setting an example for the local community they serve. They should constantly display Integrity and Community based on mutual trust and respect to create socially responsible environment.
- There are two aspects of lineup fairness that investigators should consider when forming a lineup. The first aspect is, the lineup should contain plausible fillers (also called foils or distractors) to the actual suspect. The idea behind this is to make sure that the line up is that the line up is full of good possible alternatives to the suspect and that the line up is large enough that it is not obvious who the suspect is. There should not be anyone in the line up that, appearance wise, would not plausibly be the suspect. The second aspect is that the suspect should not stand out from the fillers. The suspect should not stand out from the fillers based on the eye witness description. The suspects should be so similar to one another that the eye witness is not swayed to choosing the suspect, meaning the suspect stands out unheedingly. Doing this, safeguards the suspect from false identification. They should also not be so alike as to sway the eye witness to choose one of the fillers as opposed to the suspect. If this were to occur, the line up would be considered biased against the state that the crime and the line up occurred within.
- Lineup fairness typically refers to gathering a group of witnesses who attempt to identify a suspect based only on physical descriptions given by the eyewitness during a lineup. There are two main principles that pertain to lineup fairness. One of the main principles is that the lineup should have fillers, or distractors, that are valid substitutes for the suspect and that have similarities to the suspect. The normal size of the lineup should be equal to the effective size, but if there is a filler that is so different than the suspect, they might as well not be a filler because then the effective size would be smaller than the normal size of the lineup. It is recommended that investigators should have a minimum of five fillers for a lineup. In the case where a suspect who is innocent is identified in a lineup, it is highly suggested that there are ten fillers (including the suspect) in the lineup.The second main principle of a lineup is that the suspect should not stand out from the fillers. The investigator should gather people who look similar to the suspect in order for the suspect to not stand out so it would not draw attention to the suspect, since it could cause bias. Investigators should consider who they choose to be fillers in an unbiased way in order for the lineup to be equal and so it would not draw attention to the suspect. The members of the lineup should physically look similar to the suspect in order for the witness to be able to differ and be unbiased when choosing the suspect. It is very important for the filler selection to be done well because then it could strike a position of bias away or towards the suspect, which is unjust in the fairness of a lineup.
- The laws in America have made significant changes within the workplace over the span of the last 40+ years give or take. Some of these affected changes included enhancing employee benefits, the health, safety and overall working conditions of the employee work area along with the fair and equal treatment of both employers and employees in the workplace. Many of these laws that affect the workplace generally have come about either because of an occurrence within a workplace that warranted a change in order to stay current/relevant with today’s society (pensions, benefits). Or a negative occurrence that would’ve triggered a much needed change in order to provide a fair and safe working environment. Examples of a negative occurrence would be any kind of discrimination (age, race, disability) or harassment (sexual, retaliatory/whistle blower) . Federal (EEOC, OSHA, FLSA ), state, and local laws are mandated to provided protection to both employees and employers. Although some employers do hire employees to work in an “off the books” capacity which can cause serious legal repercussions for the employer as well as the employee. I have also found through my experiences either directly or through observation that these laws are always changing and/or are modified however some of the laws aren’t as “user friendly” as one would assume. The FMLA act requires that employers provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to expectant mothers; other countries such as Canada offer paid maternity leave time with up to 63 weeks off. There are instances where private sector employers do provide additional maternity leave benefits so this act doesn’t negatively affect every maternity leave case in this country but we can definitely improve in this area not only for expectant moms but for dads as well. There is also the varied minimum wage amounts that differ from state to state; Florida’s minimum wage is $8.46 per hour where in NY the minimum wage varies depending on the number of employees within the company. So although there have been significant changes in laws that affect the workplace in our country, I still feel that more should/can be done.
- 1. Workplace changes affected the laws in America by simply two reasons and those are: Americans take minimum wage for granted and the fact that children’s don’t wont now a days. Currently in America, minimum wage is $8.46 USD per hour based on google search. In 1950’s minimum wage was $0.75. Imagine working everyday for $0.75 an hour ! I believe not many humans would not be satisfied with that rate of pay. Today’s law, the government cannot pay an employee less than $8.46 an hour or that would be against the law and also unconstitutional. Due to the minimum wage getting higher and higher every year, the price of things increase also. for example, in 1950 bread was worth $0.30 but now in 2019 bread is worth an estimate of $3-$5. Major difference !2. The federal court is basically broken up into three different parts structures which are the Supreme Court, Courts if Appeal and District Courts. The Supreme Court is the highest court system in the Federal system. The Supreme Court hears most of the cases on appeals. The Supreme Court is made up of nine justices but only four have to agree on an appeal to issue a writ. If at least four of the nine justices agree then the case is heard. The Federal Courts of Appeal is the middle of the three structures. The Federal Courts of Appeal is divided into twelve different regions which are also called circuits. Eleven of the twelve regions or circuits handle their own cases based on the different states. The Federal Courts of Appeal also includes no original jurisdiction. They are strictly appellate. Lastly, the District Courts is the lowest level of the Federal system. It is made of 94 judicial districts all across the county to include the island of Puerto Rico, District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. The District Courts has no appellate jurisdiction. In most cases they are original jurisdiction.