Answer:
a. financial statement disclosure requirements
d. requirement of monitoring contracts with foreign agents
Explanation:
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was an act that was passed in 1977 and received two amendments in 1988 and 1998. The act aims to prohibit companies and their officers from influencing foreign officials with payments and rewards - bribery. The act also has a series of accounting requirements that are designed to ensure that shareholders have an accurate view of the company’s finances.
Explanation:
cause they suck and want to make money
Answer:
No
Explanation:
No, the UPS employer is not acting legally by firing Kenneth. As long as an employer is able to fulfill all of the requirements of the job then they are protected and cannot legally be fired without proper reason for termination. If the employee gets injured on the job they are eligible for filling a workers' compensation claim. If an employer fires an employee for any on the job related injury then they are doing so illegally and can be sued by the employee for doing so.
Answer:
As a judge, you should be required to pick from a limited range of sentences for each offense.
Explanation:
Some may argue that having passed a difficult bar exam to be licensed to practice law, spending years prosecuting or defending criminal cases, and being involved in thousands of criminal trials should qualify a judge to be free to make any sentencing decision they want—but this notion is incorrect.
Although judges tend to be extremely experienced and highly intelligent, granting judges too much leeway in sentencing decisions leads to issues like sentencing disparity (disproportionate sentencing in similar cases). Before the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) in 1984, sentencing disparities within the United States justice system were largely unaddressed, so the SRA sought to address sentencing disparities with the imposition of mandatory sentencing guidelines for federal sentences. However, the SRA limited the power of judges to a great extent, an issue that would be addressed in the <em>United States v. Booker</em> (2005) Supreme Court case, with the court ruling the sentencing guidelines imposed by the SRA be deemed advisory rather than mandatory. What can be learned from these legal developments is that sentencing guidelines are necessary for reducing disparity within the justice system, but should remain advisory so as to not place any excessive limitations on the authority or sentencing liberty of judges.
The closest answer to the Supreme Court's legal precedent—our ideal in this case—would be picking from a limited range of sentences for each offense rather than having no limitations at all, as the latter would likely result in a return to the non-uniform, disparity-ridden justice system seen before the passage of the SRA.
