I think the answer is A :)
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:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
Answer:
Crime, according to restorative justice, does more than only breach the law; it also harms people, relationships, and the community. As a result, a just remedy must address both the injuries and the wrongdoing. Helping the parties meet to discuss the damages and how to resolve them is the greatest method to do this if they are willing to do so. If they are unable or unwilling to meet, there are other options. In some cases, these meetings result in life-changing transformations for them.
Three main principles to consider: (1) harm is caused by crime, and justice requires that harm be repaired; (2) encounter: the best way to decide how to accomplish that is for the parties to deliberate together; and (3) transformation: this can have a profound impact on people, relationships, and communities.
A more technical definition is this: Restorative Justice is a view of justice that focuses on resolving the consequences of criminal activity by resolving the causes of the harm. However, when that is not possible, it is best accomplished through cooperative mechanisms that allow all willing stakeholders to meet. People, relationships, and communities can all be transformed as a result of this.
Yes and yes. Both things happening aren’t good things and if a random person was doing it I would report it and if my friends were doing it i would still report it. The right thing to to report both no matter how mad the people might be. INTEGRITY- doing the right thing when no one is watching.
