I want to say A.) to protect consumers from purchasing poor quality products. but I'm also debating on letter B.
I hope this helps
Answer:
1) Buddhist sacred texts : the Sutar
2) Christian scared texts : the Bible
3)Hindu scared texts : the Veda
4)Islamic scared texts : the Quran
5) Jewish scared texts : the tanach
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
Answer:
Reasonable doubt standard.
Explanation:
The single most important criterion for determining the level of proof necessary for conviction in criminal trials is Reasonable doubt standard.
Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof need to court. It must be exceeded to to prove a convict in a criminal case. It is exclusively used in criminal cases only as the stakes are very high.
<span>A commission had been sent to France in 1797 to discuss the disputes that had arisen out of the U.S.'s refusal to honor the Franco-American Treaty of 1778.President Adams had criticized the French Revolution, so France began to break off relations with the U.S. Adams sent delegates to meet with the French foreign minister Talleyrand in the hopes of working things out. Talleyrand's three agents told the American delegates that they could meet with Talleyrand only in exchange for a very large bribe. Tallyrand's agents told them that Tallyrand requested a $250,000 bribe and that France can get a loan of $12 million. The Americans did not pay the bribe. </span>
