Legal landscape regarding “torture,”

at
Categories
Tags

 

Senator Boller wants to understand the legal landscape regarding “torture,” particularly as it applies to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Accordingly, he asks you to make an outline that summarizes/briefs United States v. Charles Emmanuel, explaining the issue in the case, the rules provided, the legal background regarding the law on torture, and the constitutionality of the law at issue. The outline should next explain what constitutes torture from a legal standpoint, including the elements necessary to prove torture and a discussion on the differences, if any, between the definition of torture under the Convention Against Torture and under U.S. law. The outline should utilize headings and subheadings and be organized by issue. Complete sentences are not required, but ensure that you are clear.

Sample Solution

United States v. Charles Emmanuel
Issue: Whether the defendants (Charles Emmanuel and Emanuel Nicolas) violated 18 U.S.C § 2340, prohibiting torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay (GB).
Rules Provided: A violation occurred if 1.) The act was committed outside U.S.; 2.) Defendant was an employee/agent of the U.S (or acting on behalf of the US); 3.) Act was intended to inflict severe mental or physical pain/suffering; 4) defendant acted with knowledge that torturous acts would likely result; 5) object of the harm was to obtain information / punish victim etc

Legal Background: Torture is prohibited under international law by CAT, Civil Rights Act and US criminal code (18 USC §§2340-2340A). Constitutionality is determined by analyzing whether prohibited conduct falls within enumerated powers in Article I & II as well as if it passes “rational basis” test.

Definition Of Torture: Elements necessary for proving torture include 1.) Severe mental or physical pain/suffering must be inflicted intentionally and not accidentally; 2.) Pain must be extreme & caused by actual application of force directed against individual ; 3). Purpose must be obtaining information from person being tortured or punishing them.

Differences between CAT & US Law: Under CAT definition, no specific intent requirement unlike US law which requires intent to cause severe physical/mental suffering + knowledge that such conduct will occur due to actions taken.

Additionally, annulling/deprioritising execution evaluations to zero in on persistent and multi-source input, empowers administrators to give basic appraisals across the association’s pecking order. This approach can be met fluctuating responses in light of the social foundations of workers.

3.3.3 Lawful issues

Execution examinations are officially recorded in the representative’s document and can moderate suit risk. Independently, some HR experts are worried of a potential ascent in legitimate activities by representatives on the off chance that their association stops giving legitimacy pay increments in view of mathematical evaluations, which on a superficial level show up more unbiased than having no evaluations.

3.3.4 Prize decency

Execution examination handled and coming about rating is connected to procedural equity, as it gives the impression of an unmistakable and fair approach to connecting compensations to execution. Eliminating mathematical appraisals can make it hard to decide the new reason for remuneration. Cappelli and Tavis (2016) give a model where New York Life disposed of formal evaluations, and this brought about merit-pay increment to be shared inside and deciphered as execution scores. These prompted the issue of “shadow evaluations” and affected other HR choices, inciting the business to once again introduced proper examinations.

While certain associations have canceled/deprioritised execution evaluations, they have kept up with the exhibition related-pay model and searching for ways of deciding legitimacy pay increments by depending on criticism/subjective decisions by directors rather than a mathematical rating.

3.4 Circumstances FOR Annulling OR DEPRIORITISING

3.4.1 Organize input through compelling frameworks

To deal with the volume, assortment and recurrence of the input under the new methodology, the cycle should be regulated through successful frameworks. Especially as it assumes a greater part in deciding legitimacy pay increments and advancement. This ought to incorporate coordination with current HR frameworks as well as advancement of available versatile applications or online instruments that permit brief criticism conveyance. There is proof to propose that criticism is bound to be looked for electronically than face to face (Kluger and Adler, 1993).

To develop of the input ought to be basic, organized and revolved around objecti

This question has been answered.

Get Answer