Category: Ethics

Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice

Assignment Instructions Note: All quotes must be encapsulated in quotation marks. Likewise, all papers must be 100% original work to this class.

The discovery of past work being used will be treated as cheating, and as is the case for plagiarism, will as a minimum will result in a 0 for the paper.

Also the rubric aside, papers that fall short of minimum length will have a max point award related to the % of the paper they actually submit.

For example the max possible for a paper that is 50% short of the minimum length will be 50%. Students will select a subject of interest for a 7-10 page research paper supported by a minimum of 5 academic peer reviewed sources.

Identify common ethical issues that occur in the criminal justice system. – 3 Ways ethics Influence Criminal Justice.

When writing your research paper be sure to focus upon the aspect of criminal justice that you are addressing from the perspective of the course learning objective with which it is associated.

You must support points made in the research paper with scholarly resources.

Your personal opinion must be limited and will not be a determining factor in the final grade. Instead, your grade is determined by how well you support your argument utilizing the materials discussed in this course and research and reference material you locate.

What I do not want is a regurgitation of what is in the readings.

Expand on the readings; do not repeat it. Direct quotes should be used sparingly and limited to instances where the original meaning would be lost if not directly quoted.

Document your facts utilizing standard APA style 7th edition. This paper is to be submitted to me as indicated on the Course Schedule and Grading Policy Summary Table.

The paper is to be in APA format 7th edition (Times New Roman 12 pitch, double spaced) and the body of the paper is to be between 7 and 10 pages.

The body of the paper does not include the title page, table of contents, appendix or references.

Abstracts should be included BUT will not count as part of the body of the paper This is to be of high quality, free of spelling and grammatical errors, and of original work.

Ethics of Finance (Case studies)

Most politicians regardless of party affiliation promise to help the middle class and the working poor, but few deliver. Based on the posted articles about wealth and power in the U.S. what are the ethical implications of growing income inequality and what can be done about it? Make sure you also make some connection to Wilson’s chapter on Fairness. Textbook to use (Ruggiero 6) and “The moral Sense” by James Q.Wilson See bonus below.

Optional food for thought:
Our tax code is an example of institutionalized inequality that favors the rich over the middle class and working poor. For example, a hard working married couple together earn $125,000 per year. Both are nurses and contribute a net gain to the community by stamping out diseases, saving lives and improving the general fund of kindness in the world. This is not an unusual amount of money for two wage earners early in their careers in the health care industry in the Northeast. Now, they are taxed at roughly 25% because of the tax bracket they are in. So they pay $31,250 in federal taxes and therefore take home $93,750 (This is assuming they had no deductions as we will assume with the following case).

But a young man inherits a trust-fund from his wealthy parents worth $2,500,000 (two million five hundred thousand dollars). On an average year, he gets 5% interest on his investment fund. So his taxable income on his trust fund is $125,000, the same as the two nurses. Note: the 2.5 million is NOT taxed, just 5% the gain. Investment income, however, is taxed at 15%, not the 25% for salaried income. So he pays $18,750 in taxes (NOT the $31,250 of our two nurses pay), taking home $106,250 (NOT $93,750). The wealthy trust fund kid makes $12,500 more than the nurses, just because he comes from wealth and privilege. It did not use to be this way, but 30 years of policy changes by Congress have tipped the scales in favor of the rich. Even one of the wealthiest billionaires in the world, Warren Buffet, points out that he is taxed less than his secretary as a percentage of his income.

Is this ethical?

BTW the richest 1% of US citizens have more wealth than the bottom 90% of Americans combined. Of that 1%, 540 individuals are billionaires. 3 of the richest billionaires (Gates, Bezos and Buffett) have more wealth between them than the combined wealth of 160,000,000 US citizens – literally half the US population! In your assessment, avoid either/or responses. E.g., “Either we accept things as they are or we become Communists!” This is a false dichotomy that ignores the fact that income inequality is a choice made by politicians who change tax policies to favor the wealthy and who refuse to engage in meaningful campaign finance reform to prevent billionaires from choosing who gets elected (see the Princeton article).

BONUS Finally, to give you an idea how much one billion dollars is, we will do an exercise: 60,000,000 Americans are among the working poor and live in families that make $25,000 or less. Jeff Bezos in a three month period in 2017 made $26,000 every seven seconds! But he decides to be generous and give one family $25,000 a year as a free gift until they have a billion dollars. How many years would it take to add up to one billion dollars?

Post-tragedy events and Ethics

Instructions
Select a significant tragic event (either domestic or global) that has occurred during the last 50 years. The interactive PowerPoint in this unit provides some ideas of historical tragic events but understand that these are just ideas. After describing the event and the post-tragedy events, discuss the ethical aspects revolving around this incident. This may require some additional research to understand the ethical situations and the impact these had on affected people being able to move on with their lives.

Describe the actions of people and organizational leaders directly and indirectly involved with the tragedy. Specifically, address the ethical issues they faced.
What were some of the actions of local, state and federal personnel with respect to dealing with this tragedy?
Explain the strategies of organizations that attempted to assist with the clean-up after the tragic event. Describe several of the pressures that influenced their strategies. Distinguish between social responsibility, integrity and simple business ethics.
How has this event affected the ethical culture here in the United States? What other affect has it had on society as a whole?
Your response should be a minimum of two double-spaced pages. References should include, at minimum, one additional credible reference beyond the required reading. All sources used must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations, and cited per APA guidelines.

Ethics in Data Collection

Ethics in Data Collection

Research ethics in qualitative research starts with the presumption that the research process is
the collaboration between researcher, participants, and context. At the same time, the researcher
recognizes that she or he retains power over the data collection process, and the analysis and
presentation of results.
As a qualitative researcher, consider how you might accomplish your research objectives and
biases with the feelings and privacy of your participants and sources.
For this Discussion, you will explore the ethical challenges you will encounter as a qualitative
researcher.
To prepare for this Discussion:

Review Chapter 11 of the Ravitch and Carl course text and consider ethics in qualitative
research.
Use the Course Guide and Assignment Help to search for an article related to protecting privacy,
minimizing harm, or respecting the shared experience of others.
By Day 4
Post an explanation of the unique ethical challenges of protecting privacy, minimizing harm, and
respecting the shared experience of others. Use your Learning Resources to support your
explanation as well as the article you found in your search. Use proper APA format, citations, and
referencing.

NSPE Code of Ethics Case Study ( Hose Company And The Case Of The Bursting Hose Risk Assessment And Engineering/Corporate Responsibility To The Public)

Synopsis
In 1977, a nationally-respected, family-owned firm, the XYZ Hose Company, decided to switch from their rayon-reinforced hoses to AAH #1. XYZ company representatives ran tests, and decided that AAH #1 would prove more robust in the field than the less expensive nylon and polyester products. Switching to AAH #1 made sound business sense, because although more expensive than products previously used, AAH #1 allowed them to undercut their competitors who used stainless steel.
Until the 1977 introduction of XYZ’s inexpensive AAH #1 hose, farmers’ cooperatives characteristically used hoses reinforced with stainless steel. Thus, purchasing a cheaper hose, made of less expensive material, would obviously mean considerable cost savings for all involved, from the manufacturers, to the farmers’ cooperatives, to the farmers.
Unfortunately, even though XYZ’s AAH #1 hose was tested at both XYZ and an independent testing laboratory, and even through it met all the current industry standards, something went wrong with the XYZ AAH #1-reinforced anhydrous ammonia hose in use, resulting in devastating consequences for several of the product’s end users. In one reported case, the AAH #1 hose burst while a Kansas farmer, Bob Smith, was setting up the equipment for knifing the anhydrous ammonia product into his fields. When the XYZ AAH #1 hose burst, releasing the toxic ammonia into the air, the force of the discharge blew Smith’s protective goggles off his face. Smith is now legally blind, and has sustained lifetime disfigurement as a consequence of severe burns received. His physical disabilities have made him dependent on others, and he is now incapable of making a living as a farmer the only occupation he has ever known.
As a result of this and other calamitous incidents involving AAH #1 hose ruptures, XYZ and the various farmers’ cooperatives selling the product were sued by farmers. Bob Smith, and other farmers like him, claimed that XYZ did not properly design, test and monitor their product in use, and as such put the end user at inordinate risk. XYZ, on the other hand, argued that their product was misused or abused in the field; yet, because they are a responsible corporation, XYZ decided to pay out-of-court settlements to the various claimants for injuries they suffered while using the AAH #1 hose, no matter who was ultimately at fault. The jury is still out on who is liable for the hose ruptures.
The case of the XYZ AAH #1 bursting hose raises important issues for engineers. What are the engineering and corporate responsibilities to the public? In addition, because XYZ’s AAH #1 hose was innovative, and the specifications (written by the Rubber Manufacturers Association and The Fertilizer Institute) did not give guidelines for testing the experimental yarn as a reinforcing material, there is a question about the XYZ design engineers’ responsibilities. When professional codes and regulations lag behind technological innovation, can engineers use existing specifications as bench marks in risk assessment?

Questions:
What are the ethical dilemmas engineers face when innovative design goes beyond current industry standards and specifications?
What are the engineering/corporate responsibilities to the public when innovation fails?
Did XYZ do the right things, at the right times? Did those involved in the case ask the right questions during the innovation process, and did they ask the right people at the right time? Why or why not? What entities should have been responsible for the various aspects of market penetration and product safety: XYZ design engineers, managers, and production and marketing personnel? Engineers at the independent test labs? Professional Engineering Societies? Those involved in writing the Rubber Manufacturers Association codes? Farmers’ Cooperatives? Farmers?
Should XYZ have labeled their hoses with more explicit warnings? Would it have made any difference?
After withdrawing the product from the market, did XYZ’s advertisement in the Farmers’ Cooperative Magazine suffice? Could the company have done more? If so, what? When does their responsibility end and the farmers’ cooperative’s and farmers’ begin?
Did XYZ act responsibly (or ethically) when arguing against the plaintiffs or other defendants (i.e., the farmers’ cooperatives) involved in legal proceedings against them? Should XYZ have been sued at all?
Who is culpable for the damages the XYZ product inflicted on the end users (i.e., the farmers)? The chemical company that introduced AAH #1? XYZ and/or its engineers? The independent testing laboratories? The owners of the cooperatives supplying farmers with anhydrous ammonia hoses? The farmers? Why?

Ethics and Professionalism in Accounting and Auditing.

Ethics and Professionalism Project Assignment

You are to perform research on the subject of ethics and professionalism in accounting and auditing.

Write a one- to two-page single-spaced paper that discusses the impact that regulations, accounting and auditing standards have on the ethics of accountants and auditors and how these regulations, accounting and auditing standards impact how they perform their work. You are to select either one of the following: (1) specific regulation, (2) specific accounting standard (3) specific auditing standard (4) specific professional standard.  An example of a specific professional standard is the AICPA has a Code of Ethics which provides information on ethics.

The paper must have an Introduction, Body, and a Conclusion.  Cite your sources in APA format.  The paper must have at least 3 citations. The citations page does not count towards the one to two page count.
Write in your own words. A paper with excessive quotations is not in your own words.  Consider the academic honesty assignment for our course. Write to show your mastery of concepts and topics for our course.

Ensure that your name is included in the file name.  For example, the file name should be: yourlastnameWeek#assignmentname.doc.

Engineering Ethics (Case Study of Parking Structure Foundation)

Parking Structure Foundation Ethical Case

Narrative
Mary Johnson has recently passed the PE exam. She works for Spire Engineering as a structural design engineer.
For her first project as lead engineer, she designs a parking structure in an area where the soil is poor. She
requests a detailed soils report, and the geotechnical engineer recommends continuous footings. Mary designs a
reinforced concrete section according to the prevailing ACI standards. The design is reviewed by another of
Spire’s PE’s and Mary proudly stamps and signs her first set of plans.
The owner of the structure engages Spire to monitor and inspect the construction process, take concrete
samples, etc. Since Mary is the engineer of record, she visits the construction site during the site preparation
phase. Although she has heard about the way in which women are sometimes treated by construction workers,
she was unprepared for what she encountered. The whistling, taunting and general crudeness made her very
uncomfortable, but she was determined to follow through.
Mary is relatively inexperienced in dealing with contractors. Thus, in the eyes of the superintendent and
construction workers, her credibility is suspect. On the first day of pouring concrete, Mary is on site, taking
cylinder samples, inspecting the placing of reinforcement, and generally getting a feel for the construction process.
She notices a few problems and brings them to the superintendent’s attention. He accommodates some of her
concerns, but also dismisses others as unnecessary, commenting on her lack of familiarity with day-to-day
construction practices. Mary protests and makes additional suggestions. The superintendent takes advantage of
her inexperience and ignores her concerns. When she gets back to the office, she talks to some of her more
experienced colleagues and they give her some additional advice about construction and contractors.
The following day is a warm one, and after about half the concrete pour is completed, the batch plant breaks
down and the trucks stop coming. Mary knows from school and the previous evening’s discussion that if more
than an hour or two passes, the poured concrete will begin to set up and will not bond well with newly poured
concrete, forming a “cold joint.” She discusses the problem with the superintendent who assures her that the plant
will be up soon and tells her not to worry. After an hour and a half has passed, the batch plant is not yet on line.
Mary tells the superintendent that the already placed concrete will have to be removed. A protracted discussion
ensues in which the superintendent says such a drastic action is unnecessary and that if Mary knew anything
about construction, she would understand. He also makes several other derogatory comments about her level of
knowledge and competence. He says that he can simply agitate the already poured concrete and produce a
structurally sound joint. At that instant, the first concrete truck arrives, and Mary must decide right away.
Mary is not sure about the nuances of placing concrete and does not want to risk further abuse from the
superintendent and construction workers. Thus she decides to trust the experience of the superintendent and
continue the pour. The finished product looks OK, and the rest of the construction is completed without incident.

Questions about Ethics and Professionalism
1. Consider Mary’s preparation before visiting the site. Did Mary fulfill her professional obligation to her
employer? Give an argument for your answer with reference to the ASCE code of Ethics.
2. What about Mary’s actions on the site the second day? Did she behave in a professional, ethical manner? Cite
the relevant ethical references in formulating your answer. If you think her actions should have been different,
describe what you would do in similar circumstances.
3. Should Mary’s boss have let her inspect the construction job without supervision? Be sure to substantiate your
answer with reference to the ASCE Code of Ethics.
4. Suppose that Mary’s boss, after hearing of her experiences on the first day, assigns Alex, a more experienced
engineer, to accompany her to the site. Rather than simply advising and supporting her, Alex takes over the inspection process, ignoring Mary but also preventing the cold joint problem. Analyze the ethical positions of
Mary, Alex and their boss.
5. Imagine yourself as an expert witness for Spire Engineering. How would you assess the actions of Mary and
her boss with respect to the firm’s liability.
IV. Answers to Ethical Questions:
1. Consider Mary’s preparation before visiting the site. Did Mary fulfill her professional obligation to her
employer? Give an argument for your answer with reference to the ASCE code of Ethics.
There are several items noted in the ASCE code of ethics that are relevant to this case:
1. “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their
professional duties.”
2. “Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.”
3. “Engineers whose professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health, and
welfare of the public are endangered, shall inform their clients of the possible consequences.”
4. “Engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another person or firm may be in violation of any of
the provisions of Cannon 1 (to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public) shall present such
information to the proper authority in writing and shall cooperate with the proper authority in furnishing such
further information or assistance as may be required.”
Mary’s preparation before the visit is suspect. Mary seems to have the technical knowledge to handle this case.
However, Mary’s knowledge about practical construction techniques and ability to deal with the contractor are in
question. Mary has probably not been trained to deal with contractors. However, she was aware of the way
women were sometimes treated at construction sites. She was not prepared for the abuse she received at the
sight. Is she expected to prepare herself for this abuse? Mary should not have been subjected to the ‘whistling,
taunting, and general crudeness’. However, Mary shouldn’t allow that to affect the way that she performs her job.
Is Mary’s preparation at fault? If it is, is this a case of Mary acting outside of her expertise.
2. What about Mary’s actions on the site the second day. Did she behave in a professional , ethical manner? Cite
the relevant ethical references in formulating your answer. If you think her actions should have been different,
describe what you would do in similar circumstances.
The same codes that applied to question 1 apply to question 2. Mary’s foremost obligation is to the public. It is
questionable whether Mary was competent in this situation. She did not know the ‘nuances of placing concrete.’
One might ask if she is acting out of her area of expertise, which would be a direct violation of the ASCE codes.
Also, she allows herself to be overruled in this situation which involves the safety of the public. Is Mary only
responsible for technical expertise, suggestions, and consultation, or is Mary on sight to police the contractor and
make sure he doesn’t cut corners? Mary has voiced her concerns about the ‘cold joint’, however she is badgered
into backing down from that recommendation. In this situation Mary has some different options. She could refuse
to back down from her recommendation. Mary could notify her employer of the contractor’s actions. If it is
determined that there is a problem with the ‘cold joint’, Mary could notify the owner of the structure. If there was any criminal action by the contracting firm then the appropriate government officials could be notified.
3. Should Mary’s boss have let her inspect the construction job without supervision? Be sure to substantiate your
answer with reference to the ASCE Code of Ethics.
In hindsight, it appears that Mary was not quite ready to deal with the contractor. If Mary’s boss foresaw
problems in the relation between Mary and the contractor, he might have chosen to ease her transition by
allowing her to go with a supervisor. On the other hand, it seems that Spire Engineering had confidence in Mary’s
abilities. Perhaps they thought that Mary was qualified to go into the field, and that this would be the best way to
give her experience. If Spire sent Mary into a situation that they knew she would not be able to handle, then that
might be considered equivalent to practicing outside of your area of expertise, which the ASCE code explicitly
forbid.
4. Suppose that Mary’s boss, after hearing of her experiences on the first day, assigns Alex, a more experienced
engineer, to accompany her to the site. Rather than simply advising and supporting her, Alex takes over the
inspection process, ignoring Mary but properly handling the cold joint problem. Analyze the ethical positions of
Mary, Alex, and their boss.
The ASCE Code of Ethics also states:
“Engineers shall give proper credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and shall recognize the
proprietary interests of others. Whenever possible they shall name the person or persons who may be
responsible for designs, inventions, writings or other accomplishments.”
By ignoring Mary’s recommendations on a project Mary designed, Alex might be trying to take credit for Mary’s
work. This is a violation of the ASCE code. However, Alex’s primary obligation is to the public’s safety, and he
has apparently lived up to that obligation. Mary has an obligation to herself to get credit for her work. If she feels
that she is not given credit for her work, she might voice that opinion to her employer. The boss in this situation
has an obligation to his client and to the public. By sending Alex with Mary he has prevented possible problems
resulting from Mary’s inexperience. The boss also has an obligation to maintain a good working environment for
his employees. In this situation Mary’s opinions were valuable, and she should have been able to voice them. The
boss might make the working environment more open, to allow Mary room to express her views.
5. Imagine yourself as an expert witness for Spire Engineering. How would you assess the actions of Mary and
her boss with respect to the firm’s liability.
Mary has put her company in a very precarious position. By allowing the contractors to go against her better
judgment, she may have incurred liability for the company. She was on sight to make sure that construction
would go as expected and she failed to do so. So, she has put her company in a position where they are liable.
The question is raised again: is Mary only responsible for technical expertise, suggestions, and consultation, or is
Mary on sight to police the contractor and make sure he doesn’t cut corners?

Engineering Ethics Case Study (Frozen Food Cabinets)

Objectives
This assignment addresses, in part, some of the following objectives for the course as outlined in the course specification:
 review and analyse the role of engineers as managers
 evaluate the characteristics of effective management control, including elements of operations and financial control
 distinguish and discuss the social and legal responsibilities relating to product liability and professional negligence
 determine appropriate methods of protecting intellectual property for specific situations
 apply the concept of ethics, and select and justify suitable ethical guidelines for specific situations, using as a basis the Engineers Australia, Code of Ethics.

CASE: Frozen Food Cabinets
Fred Merton is a professional engineer and is a chartered member of Engineers Australia. He is employed by CoolIT Engineering, a small consultancy firm that specialises in the areas of fault investigation and project management. CoolIT’s office is in Brisbane, Queensland. Fred is responsible to the General Manager of the company, George Greener. George is an accountant by background and has been with the company for sixteen years. Fred commenced employment with the company approximately twelve months ago.

CoolIT was engaged by the BuyCheap supermarket chain that has 95 stores throughout the country. BuyCheap was experiencing problems with their frozen food cabinets. The problem was that certain areas of the cabinets did not appear to keep the food at the required temperature with a subsequent defrosting of the food and premature perishing of goods. The cabinets, 243 in total, were all manufactured by CoolRight Refrigeration Company during the period 1996 to 2001. Unfortunately CoolRight went bankrupt in 2003 and so repair of the cabinets by the original manufacturer was not possible.

CoolIT’s investigation of the problem, under Fred’s direction, involved the services of Dr Klaus Freezer, a private consultant and expert in refrigeration mechanics, and personnel from the Faculty of Engineering at the Centenary University located in Sydney, Australia. It was resolved that the problem was due to a design fault in the refrigeration piping in certain areas of the cabinets.

BuyCheap was satisfied with CoolIT’s initial investigation and engaged the firm as the project managers to correct the problem. Fred was appointed Project Manager for the repair project. Fred prepared contract documents and called tenders for the work. The source of the problem and its method of repair varied between cabinets, as CoolRight originally used a number of different methods of installing the piping. Unfortunately all the cabinets look the same on the outside and it is only when the cabinets are dismantled that the actual method of repair can be ascertained. For this reason, the contract pricing was based upon a rate per cabinet plus a sum based on the actual type of repair for a particular cabinet.

The contract was won by FixFrig, a nationwide refrigeration repair company with repair facilities in each state of Australia.

  • FixFrig has been working on the cabinets for three months and to date 102 of the cabinets have been repaired and a further 25 are currently under repair. Fred’s dealings with FixFrig have been with the National Repair Manager, Sam Sneeze. Sam also, coincidentally, happens to be Fred’s brother-in-law. Sam’s office is also located in Brisbane. Fred has recommended payment of repairs on the 102 completed jobs and a progress payment was made by BuyCheap to FixFrig three days ago.
    Two weeks ago Fred received an anonymous letter from Western Australia from a person who claimed to be an ex-employee of FixFrig. He mentioned in the letter that he was fired from his position as refrigeration mechanic because of a difference of opinion with his supervisor. The difference of opinion resulted from the fact that he considered the method of repair being used by his firm would fix the fault in the short term but had the potential to cause serious leakage of gas into sections of the cabinet in the future, and this could lead to food poisoning of goods in the cabinet. The contamination of goods would be likely to go unnoticed by customers with the potential that they could consume the goods and become seriously ill. If children or elderly people were to consume the food it could perhaps prove fatal.
    Three days after receiving the letter, Fred took the matter up in a meeting with Sam Sneeze which was also attended by CoolIT’s general manager, George Greener. Fred outlined the general problem to Sam but did not show him the letter. Sam assured Fred that all repairs were thoroughly checked, in accordance with FixFrig’s quality control procedures. George made some comment about not being able to trust the reaction of ‘former disgruntled employees’ and the matter was not pursued further. Sam also mentioned, quite worriedly, that FixFrig was having some “temporary trading difficulties” and that it was important for the company to proceed as quickly as possible with the repairs to ensure adequate cash flow. After the discussion Sam took Fred and George Greener out to dinner at the best restaurant in Brisbane to show, as Sam put it, “how valued their friendship and business was”.
    Today, Fred has received a letter from a BuyCheap manager in Melbourne expressing his concern about what he perceived as inadequate repairs to the cabinets in his store. He also expressed concern at finding some drops of liquid mercury in the bottom of one of the cabinets after the FixFrig mechanic had finished his repair work.
    In addition, Fred heard on the midday news a report of a child in Sydney having died after eating contaminated frozen food. The news report said that the source of the food had been traced back to a BuyCheap supermarket store.
    Identify and discuss the management, contractual and ethical issues involved in this case. What are Fred’s liabilities in this case? What course of action would be appropriate for Fred to follow, both immediately and in the longer term?
    Notes:
    (i) Marks will be allocated in the following way:
    Identification and Discussion of Issues: Maximum 100 marks
    Identification of courses of action: Maximum 100 marks
    Written Communication: Maximum 100 marks
    Total Maximum 300 marks