Gratuities Case Study

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

I personally agree with the PBS Frontline episode in that partisan elections can promote corruption in the political world. Thus, I do not believe that partisan elections is a good way of selecting judges. Due to its structure, judges are elected by the people based on their likeability/appeal and political party affiliation, aspects I do not think should be the primary reasons to vote in a judge. Rather, the judge should be judged and elected based on their character and accountability as a political figurehead. Citizens want a reliable, impartial, and sustaining judge who is able to make the right decision based on the laws and current facts provided. How can a judge be impartial when working a case if a lawyer present donated a large sum to his campaign during election? I, along with the public, do not think the judge could be impartial as evident by the poll taken and found that 83% of the public believe judges are influenced by outside campaign contributions (PBS Frontline). This is the same concept found in the baseball reference of allowing an umpire, who has been paid by baseball players, to impartially referee a game (PBS Frontline). In both situations, I do not believe the judges would be able to fairly and neutrally preside over the case, making the system potentially corrupt over time and not a preferred method of selecting judges.

The judge in this case is the Honorable Linda Storey, who is considered to be difficult and very unpredictable. Although she has been on the bench for a number of years, she has a reputation for making uninformed rulings and for being discourteous to the parties before her court. The jury pool will likely be moderate to conservative.

Judge Johnson was very respectful to the defendants and their attorneys. He read every case’s documents thoroughly, talked to the defendants and their attorneys respectfully, made sure he interpreted the law wisely, gave every party a fair hearing, and enforced the law with love and

In “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.

Accepting others gratuity could cause the agency to be investigated and possibility sued for bribery. Every gratuity should be directed to the charity of the department to cut down on legal issues and conduct unbecoming of the

The moral problem presented in this scenario is the police officer must decide on whether or not to accept the Christmas gifts that the owner of a small market is giving him as an expression of his appreciation. The police officer must decide whether or not to adhere to the department’s policies on accepting gratuities. Although accepting the gifts are not violating a criminal law, it can violate the department’s rules and policies on gratuities.

It has also been suggested that judges could use video conferencing facilities from a different location in order to deal with a civil dispute rather than be physically present. This is not without its’ own set of challenges . It is implied that a party in a trial has the right to see a judge “struggling conscientiously with the detail of a case ” which is a “feature of the court system that cannot be discarded ”. In trying to minimise the physical aspect of the judge’s role in court seems to undermine the basic fundamental human rights mentioned in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that parties in a trial are entitled to a “fair and public hearing...” . This is because it seeks to reinforce the aspect of the courts moving towards a more ‘impersonal ’ and ‘nonhuman ’ approach to dealing with civil disputes.

Following the success of Christopher Columbus’ voyage to the Americas in the early16th century, the Spaniards, French and Europeans alike made it their number one priority to sail the open seas of the Atlantic with hopes of catching a glimpse of the new territory. Once there, they immediately fell in love the land, the Americas would be the one place in the world where a poor man would be able to come and create a wealthy living for himself despite his upbringing. Its rich grounds were perfect for farming popular crops such as tobacco, sugarcane, and cotton. However, there was only one problem; it would require an abundant amount of manpower to work these vast lands but the funding for these farming projects was very scarce in fact it was

As your 90 days is quickly approaching I will need to begin processing your benefit elections effective October 1st. I have attached the benefit information to this email (in addition to what you received at the open enrollment meeting). Please let me know by Monday, September 14th what you have decided.

There is an entire industry that operates by depicting different experiences and scenarios, even man-made worlds. The film industry has produced movies that supposedly show the inner workings of war, serial killers, and of course, street gangs. One of the few things that these very different topics share with each other is that each possess much more depth and complexity than could ever be properly represented in a 120-minute-long film. The despair that plagues soldiers and war veterans can be shown to a certain extent, but this does not even come close to the grim reality of the issues common amongst some returning soldiers, such as PTSD. This holds true when looking at the film Gran Torino, a 2008 film that tells the story of an old, reclusive

But the court as a system run by human beings inevitably corrupts the law resulting in social conformity. The abuse of power comes unfairly to all the individuals residing within the

It is sad when the Appeals Court Judges Violated Ethics Laws, Report Says according to Sam Hananel in the Huffington Post on April 28,2014. The Center for Public Integrity released a report Monday that found twenty-four cases in which judges ruled on the case despite owning stock in the company appearing before them. Also in another two cases the judges where financially tied to the law firms representing the parties. When the judges found out sixteen of them sent out letters to the parties involved to disclose the violations. The judges said that their “failure to withdraw from the cases was an oversight.” (Hananel) In a 2011 case the 11th United States Circuit Court of Appeals judge in Atlanta, Judge James Hill, ruled in favor of the health care giant Johnson & Johnson while in a lawsuit over a malfunctioning medication pump. Judge James Hill apparently owned $100,000 in Johnson & Johnson stock during this verdict.

In addition, it is imperative for the judge not to give the jury any improper advice that might affect their verdict. Any advice given by the judge to the jury must not be given privately (Law Teacher, 2016). In order to maintain the integrity of the civil jury system, the problem of judicial influence must be

Consequently, if the public’s perception is that a judge can be “bought” through campaign funding or individual contributions, that perception will erode the public’s confidence in the integrity of that particular judge, the court in which he/she serves, and will ultimately undermine our three-branch system of justice.