In America, we have something that one may call the justice system. According NOLO, justice system is “a term that describes the courts and other bureaucracies that handle American's criminal legal business, including offices of various state and federal prosecutors, public defenders, and probation offices.” At times, the justice system can be blind and one may feel that justice is not in their best interest. However, one may use the justice system to seek fame or fortune, to use the justice system to open up locked doors and one may use the justice system for vengeance. Going the route of vengeance one has to understand that your judgement may be clouded by anger and greed, the best way to utilize the justice system is with ethical and morally …show more content…
It may also be defined as any lawsuit in which the plaintiff knows that there is little or no chance of the lawsuit succeeding if pursued in court.” Frivolous lawsuit can win many individuals lots of money, as well as moments of embarrassment. In the United States, many of our countries citizens are looking for ways to get rich quick. Making Frivolous allegations against companies and organizations can cost high amount in lawyer fees and time. In some cases, a frivolous lawsuit could cost an owner of a business his or her business. Comparing and contrasting two known cases such as Liebeck vs. McDonalds and Pearson vs. Chung, frivolous cases that made one wonder if the cases were ethically and morally right, or did one of the plaintiffs believe that this was going to be a way to make fast money. In the two cases examined, one has to understand that personal opinions do not determine the frivolous cases, but facts. The facts that presented in front of the courtroom determine the judge’s judgement in the matter. This case study will determine if the cases presented were justified and that the plaintiffs and defendants represented to …show more content…
Reading the two cases one can have their opinion of the outcome, neither right nor wrong in these two cases, the defendant was found liable. McDonalds being a huge franchise found a way to recover from the lawsuit from Stella Liebeck. Some frivolous cases cause companies to revamp their policies and procedures. Many states are trying to lower the risk of companies being victims of frivolous lawsuits, according to an article protecting the Future of Small Business Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New York and others has created ways to tackle tort reform, especially complex and costly issues. According to the article Protecting The Future of Small Business these reform should address at least three issues such as Joint and several liability (proportional fault), Caps on noneconomic and punitive damages (pain and suffering awards and punitive damage or “punishment” awards), and “Statutes of repose,” which are similar to statutes of limitations.” Within the grasp one should understand that time and money. For a pair of pants $57 million should be considered an unrealistic amount of money, to sue someone for. Ethically the two cases sought to be very different and in both cases, one should review that the good guys or gals won. The justice system was however, when one claim mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort, the lawsuit may come as
Damages are a fundamental principle in the American legal system. However, a number of recent cases in the United States have sparked a debate on the issue, the most famous one being the “hot coffee lawsuit”1. In 1994, Stella Liebeck bought coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant, spilt it, and was severely burnt. She sued the McDonald’s company, received $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.9 million in punitive damages. A judge then reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The final out-of-court settlement was of approximately $500,000. For many, this case is frivolous (meaning that the plaintiff’s prospects of being successful were low or inexistent), but it really highlights the question of excessive punitive damages compared to the damage suffered and its causes.
In the case of Liebeck versus McDonald’s, I definitely would have sided with McDonald’s. Despite the court’s decision, I disagree with the decision to reward Stella Liebeck financially. I stand by my decision for the reasons that coffee is meant to be served hot, Liebeck was extremely thin-skinned, and a company should not be held responsible for the misuse of their product even if it was unintentional. Our society is one that has almost become dependent on law suits, cases like Liebeck’s should not have been entertained in court. In my opinion, the judicial system failed
In “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman he offers a detailed explanation of many different ways to define justice and allows the reader to fully comprehend the meaning of it. Before he even began explaining justice he gave his own experience with crime as way to convey to the reader how his rights had been violated and he had been filled with anger at the criminals instead of the justice that failed him. This first hand encounter with crime allowed Reiman to prove to readers that justice is what is what protects us and it is the criminals who are the problem. To see that even a man who had thought and written about nothing but crime for thirty-five years could still become
1) Starbucks’ legal case strategy legal maneuvering cannot be considered as ethical. The company tried to use its power in order to weaken the small company that already was much weaker. It is obvious that Black Bear had much less finances than the Starbucks did, and that is why legal procedures were exhausting the small company financially. The maneuvering, undertaken by Starbucks, had the aim to destroy the Black Bear Company, and thus to reach its target in the legal proceedings.
Do you remember the lawsuit about the woman who ordered the McDonald’s coffee and spilled it in her lap and sued McDonald’s because it did not have a warning label on it? What about the woman who fell in the fountain at the mall while texting and wants to sue the mall? These lawsuits may seem fairly farfetched. They fall into the category called frivolous.
The governance of our present day public and social order co-exist within the present day individual. Attempts to recognize the essentiality of equality in hopes of achieving an imaginable notion of structure and order, has led evidence based practitioners such as Herbert Packer to approach crime and the criminal justice system through due process and crime control. A system where packer believed in which ones rights are not to be infringed defrauded or abused was to be considered to be the ideal for procedural fairness. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson pg 9 cjt To convict an individual because proper consideration was not taken will stir up social unrest rather then it’s initial intent, when he or she who has committed the crime is not punished for their doings can cause for a repetition and even collaboration with other’s for a similar or greater crime.
Wanting to understand and be involved with putting the right criminal behind bars has always been a passion. Getting a better understanding of the criminal justice system explained how innocent can be convicted. During, this learning process it has been obvious that there are new and lethal forms of criminality, which can range from international terrorism to transnational syndicates.
Today our world is filled with crime. The people committing these crimes must have a consequence for their illegal actions. The system in place to keeping everything fair and safe is called the criminal justice system. This was put in place to ensure there is fairness and justice served to people who break the laws set up by the government.
The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).
In the book “Out of the Dust” by Karen Hesse, Billie Jo is the main character; a fourteen year old girl who has had to deal with an exceptional amount of loss. She has lost her mother, brother, one of her close friends, and so much more. Billie Jo has to go through her normal life even after dealing with the loss of her mother. Billie Jo takes about her and her pa stating, “We are both changing, we are shifting to fill in the empty spaces left by Ma.” (76) Loss is something experienced by most people. However, even though it is a hard thing to deal with, everyone has to keep strong and keep going through all of the sorrow.
Frivolous Lawsuits As children our parents tried to instill in all of us good moral judgment and common sense. However, if I was to open the newspaper I would surely find any number of articles on the latest frivolous lawsuit, these being even more outrageous than the ones in yesterday’s paper. How have we as a society, which is completely capable of rational thinking, allowed ourselves to become so intertwined in the blaming game?
The definition of justice and the means by which it must be distributed differ depending on an individual’s background, culture, and own personal morals. As a country of many individualistic citizens, the United States has always tried its best to protect, but not coddle, its people in this area. Therefore, the criminal justice history of the United States is quite extensive and diverse; with each introduction of a new era, more modern technologies and ideals are incorporated into government, all with American citizens’ best interests in mind.
While pursuing my criminal justice degree at the University of Phoenix, justice is a topic that has arisen constantly and defined differently be numerous individuals. After many discussions involving this topic in the courses, I was able to define justice and what it means to me. Although I do not currently work in the field, the classmates who have experience in the field brought great personal experiences to the discussions. University of Phoenix has also contributed to my definition of justice through the facilitators. The facilitators currently work in the field they are teachi...
The statement "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" summarises and highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal justice system. In a just society, the innocent would never be charged, nor convicted, and the guilty would always be caught and punished. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve due to the society in which we live. Therefore, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice system more frequently than is publicised or known to the public at large. They are routine and would have to be considered as a serious problem in our society. The law is what most people respect and abide by, if society cannot trust the law that governs them, then there will be serious consequences including the possible breakdown of that society. In order to have a fair and just society, miscarriages of justice must not only become exceptional but ideally cease to occur altogether.
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.