Unethical behaviors

In CCJ 4054, students study unethical behavior patterns which are arguably driven by:

a) codes of conduct,

b) laws,

c) determinism,

d) indeterminism,

e) free will,

f) universal responsibility,

g) relativism,

h) legal moralism,

i) paternalism

j) egoism

k) Virtues and Vices

Students will use the film to address Six of the 11 concepts listed above and will provide an analysis of:

1) why corruption occurs in the criminal justice system,

2) why it is necessary to differentiate between ethics and morality.

3) why determining one's duties should include ethical consideration

Sample Answer

Unethical behavior can be defined as an action that falls outside what is morally measured proper or right for a profession, an industry or a person in the estimation of right-thinking society members. Just like individuals, industries as well as professions can also behave unethically. The problem with ethics is that it borders so closely with morality that it becomes difficult to draw the thin line between the two. Moreover, ethics cannot easily be legislated and falls at the alter of personal decision and opinion. Among other things

In the field of general wellbeing research, the definition for the most part utilized is the one by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. Here Genocide is characterized as any of the accompanying demonstrations

"submitted with plan to pulverize, in entire or to some extent, a national ethnical, racial or strict gathering accordingly:

(a) Killing individuals from the gathering;

(b) Causing genuine real or mental damage to individuals from the gathering;

(c) Deliberately dispensing on the gathering states of life determined to realize its physical decimation in entire or to some degree;

(d) Imposing estimates expected to anticipate births inside the gathering;

(e) Forcibly moving offspring of the gathering to another gathering." (United Nations 1948)

The definition continues contending that purpose is the most troublesome component to decide and

"To establish destruction, there must be a demonstrated purpose with respect to culprits to physically wreck a national, ethnical, racial or strict gathering. Social pulverization doesn't get the job done, nor does a goal to just scatter a gathering. It is this uncommon expectation, or dolus specialis, that makes the wrongdoing of destruction so interesting. Also, case law has related purpose with the presence of a State or hierarchical arrangement or strategy, regardless of whether the meaning of destruction in universal law does exclude that component.

Critically, the casualties of decimation are intentionally focused on – not haphazardly – due to their genuine or saw enrollment of one of the four gatherings secured under the Convention (which rejects political gatherings, for instance). This implies the objective of obliteration must be the gathering, in that capacity, and not its individuals as people. Annihilation can likewise be submitted against just a piece of the gathering, as long as that part is recognizable (counting inside a topographically constrained territory) and "generous." (United Nations 1948)

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was received by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and went into power on 12 January 1951 as per article XIII. (Joined Nations 1951) As in the Public wellbeing talk