...Corporate Psychological Defences: An Oil Spill Case Author(s): T. Ketola Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 65, No. 2 (May, 2006), pp. 149-161 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123778 . Accessed: 03/12/2013 07:49 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 130.209.6.50 on Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:49:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions (2006) 65: 149-161 Journal of Business Ethics DOI 10.1007/sl0551-005-4175-4 ? Springer 2006 Corporate Psychological Defences: T. Ketola An Oil Spill Case ABSTPJVCT. protect isational morality defences the Organisational self-esteem even This an oil and moral at the paper refinery psychological integrity expense analyses and of the its parent of defences the organ the of while concessions corporation imply that is taking a ...
Words: 9258 - Pages: 38
...Based on the notion that weapons manufacturers, in addition to other ‘sin industries’ such as gambling, tobacco and alcohol, have unreasonably been excluded from corporate social responsibility (CSR) research, Halpern and Snider (2011) conduct a study on US defence firms’ CSR. In accordance with the overall academic view that industry’s CSR is a result of managers’ CSR orientation (Carroll and Shabana, 2010), they evaluate US managers’ views and find their orientations to be predominantly similar to nondefense counterparties. Therefore, Halpern et al. (2011) suggest that weapons manufacturers ought to be included in the pool of CSR research and practice. Primarily, the article presents the underlying controversy and ideological bias against defence firms and points to the anecdotal arguments presented by researchers and mainly by Byrne (2007) in his publishing ‘Assessing Arms Makers’. Following this discussion, the four-domain model and its background is introduced, together with Aupperle’s (2008) CSR orientation research on chief executives of Forbes Directory. When discussing CSR and defence firms, Halpern et al. present their main argument that CSR should be empirically assessed and consistently with nondefense industries, i.e. using people’s orientations rather than subjective moral assessments. They pose the rhetoric question as to beyond what extent or purpose a product becomes harmful and thus socially irresponsible. What is more, they touch on the idea that rationale...
Words: 1171 - Pages: 5
...otherwise be unlawful in three groups of cases- (1) cases of public necessity, where defendant interferes with another’s property in the public interest. (2) cases of private necessity where defendant interferes with another’s property from imminent peril and (3) ‘action taken as a matter of necessity to assist another person without his...
Words: 2999 - Pages: 12
...Necessity is a civil defence while duress and duress of circumstances are criminal defences. Therefore in order to fully answer this question we must explore the defences of duress, duress of circumstances for criminal law and the defence of necessity for civil law and determine to what extent they provide a defence. In the case of Valderrama-Vega (1985) the D smuggled cocaine due to threats on his life and threats to disclose his homosexuality. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction because the Jury did not look at the cumulative effects of all the threats that were made to him. A two stage test was introduced in the case of Graham (1982) when the D helped kill his wife because he was threatened by his homosexual lover. Was the D compelled to act as he did because he reasonably believed he had a good cause to fear serious injury or death? If so, would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused have responded in the same way? As we can see by these two cases, the Courts are prepared to accept the defence when the D life is being threatened. In the case of Matrin (DP) (2000) the D suffered from a schizoid-affective state which would make him see things as threatening and believe the threats would be carried out, therefore the Court held that the correct test should have been whether, in view of the D condition, he may have reasonably feared for his own or mothers safety. So now we can see that the Court includes danger to oneself and...
Words: 1211 - Pages: 5
...analysis will be conducted on each defendant and charges against each of them will be established along with definitions of each offence. The principles of causation, actus reus (AR) and mens rea (MR) will be discussed and relevant laws applied to the facts within each case and relevant laws applied. The first section of the report, R v Tom we will be discussing the criminal liability of Tom in the death of Rachel in which both murder and manslaughter charges will be considered. The AR for both of these offences is the same and can be defined as “The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace.”[1] Assuming the victim was alive that this scenario was not during a war, it remains to establish that this was an unlawful killing. In the case of R v Freya we will focus on the AR of omission and determine whether the defendant Nurse Freya did the act or omitted to do a legally recognised duty which resulted in the death of Rachel. We will also decide whether the act was deliberate, unlawful, and a significant cause of death. In the case of R v Freya only a charge of manslaughter will be considered as Nurse Freya had neither the direct or oblique intent to be charged with murder. R v Tom In the case of R v Tom the defendant Tom (D) swung a metal poker into the head of his wife V (V). V was sent to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured skull but regained consciousness. Upon waking V found painkillers by her bed and took an overdose resulting in her death. There...
Words: 2454 - Pages: 10
...recognitions from the law, within the boundaries of tolerance. (Raz : 1998) However Australia follow shared values such as egalitarian and respect of the individual belief. In relation to “Cultural Defence” in a criminal case, this would mean that the defendant seek a different treatment. In the ARLC 57 report of multiculturalism and the law, Australia already take into considerations the varieties of cultures within the country. Obedience to the law might be complicated depending on each individual, and might result in the breach of cultural tradition. However the Act clearly state that in the Common law system, unawareness of the law will not be...
Words: 2002 - Pages: 9
...Legal Aspects of Intoxication Aditya Vikram Yadav Student Chapter 1 Abstract Intoxication as defined in S. 86 has remained a convenient defence in numerous murder cases, as it allows for acquittal in case of temporary insanity due to drunkenness. Through this paper we explore the jurisprudential history and the legal aspect of intoxication and find ways to bypass the landmark judgement of Basdev v. State of PEPSU(1956), which established the doctrine of insanity based on previous English judgements. This paper seeks to find ways for the police to establish guilt in such cases. S. 86 Scope of Section – The Indian Courts attribute the same knowledge to an inebriated person as they do to when he is sober. If the man has not gone very deep in drinking, the court can gather from the facts his intention, and whether the act was intended. Therefore, in cases where intention is essential, drunkenness is a defence. This section creates an artificial rule for effect of evidence and significance of facts, and the section must be read as it is and construed strictly. No knowledge or intention further of that of a sober man can be established to an intoxicated person. Drunkenness where not available as a defence can be offered as a mitigator of sentence. The section makes clear that intoxication has no effect on a person’s knowledge, and he must be presumed to cause the consequences of his acts. The difference between S. 85 and S. 86 is essentially based on whether the drunkenness...
Words: 3419 - Pages: 14
...People who are charged with offences in the United States will very often attempt to use one of the criminal defences to make them not criminally responsible or less criminally responsible for the charge. Some of the Criminal defences used are the insanity defense, claiming that the offender was mentally insane, the necessity defence, claiming that the crime was committed to prevent a more serious crime from occurring, and being underage. Each of these three criminal defences are very effective ways of reducing or eliminating criminal responsibility from the offender. A person's age is a large variable in determining whether or not the person is criminally responsible. and child under the age of seven years old is most likely not going to...
Words: 1362 - Pages: 6
...In the article “The Coroners and Justice Act 2009-patial defence to murder (1) Loss of control”, the professor Alan Norrie is debating the new law which came into force in 2010 regarding the partial defence of loss of self-control. The article is based on the Law Commission’s approaches to this subject and the amendments brought in the law which now covers loss of control arising from anger or fear. The article offers an objective revise of the new law in a criticizing manner and few arguments in comparing it with the old law. The article is divided in seven parts, each part discuss about an element of the partial defence. In the first part of the article the professor explains the 2009 Act and then continues further on with evaluating the way in which the elements of loss of self-control have changed. Murders before coming into force of the s55 of the Coroners and Justice Act was governed by the partial defence of the provocation. Under the provocation defence the defendant was required to show that he/she lost their self-control due to things said or done. Provocation has its roots in the seventeen century, and its basis was set out in the judgement of Devlin J in Duffy.The common law concept was amended by s.3 of the Homicide Act 1957 and was establishing that the trigger had to be some form of human action. The Duffy definition was extended by further case law which were stating that the provocation did not have to come from the victim and it did had to be directed at the...
Words: 2995 - Pages: 12
...NECESSITY LAW THE GENERAL RULE Necessity arises where a defendant is forced by circumstances to transgress the criminal law. The generally accepted position is that necessity cannot be a defence to a criminal charge. The leading case is: * R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273. The defendants and a cabin boy were cast adrift in a boat following a shipwreck. The defendants agreed that as the cabin boy was already weak, and looked likely to die soon, they would kill him and eat him for as long as they could, in the hope that they would be rescued before they themselves died of starvation. A few days after the killing they were rescued and then charged with murder. The judges of the Queen's Bench Division held that the defendants were guilty of murder in killing the cabin boy and stated that their obvious necessity was no defence. The defendants were sentenced to death, but this was commuted to six months' imprisonment. * Lord Coleridge CJ, having referred to Sir Matthew Hale's assertion (The History of the Pleas of the Crown, 1736) that a man was not to be acquitted of theft of food on account of his extreme hunger, doubted that the defence of necessity could ever be extended to a defendant who killed another to save his own life. After referring to the Christian aspect of actually giving up one's own life to save others, rather than taking another's life to save one's own, he referred to the impossibility of choosing between the value of one person's life and another's: ...
Words: 1991 - Pages: 8
...provided by Pistorius and his lawyers at the bail hearing, the disputed element of the crime will be fault. You can only be found guilty of murder if you unlawfully and intentionally killed another person. You can be found guilty of culpable homicide if you unlawfully and negligently killed another person. There is no dispute that the killing of Reeva Steenkamp was unlawful as it would be impossible to argue that Pistorius acted in self-defence (or private defence, as it is known in law). You can only rely on self-defence to exclude unlawfulness if an attack on your life (or the life of another), on your property or other similar interest has commenced or is imminent. This is an objective test, so where no attack actually occurred, one cannot rely on self-defence to justify the killing of another person, which you thought was necessary to defend yourself. No such attack occurred or was imminent in this case. (Whether the common law should be developed in line with the values in the Constitution to restrict the right to kill others in defence of your property, is an interesting question, which I cannot discuss here.) The question then is whether the accused had the requisite intention to kill another...
Words: 1318 - Pages: 6
...In the case of Woolmington v DPP , Woolmington was charged with murdering his wife but he raised the defence that he had shot her accidentally. The trial judge instructed that after the prosecution proved that Woolmington had shot his wife then Woolmington bore the legal burden (hereinafter referred as 'LB') of proving his argument that it was a pure accident. In this circumstances, the court was meaning that the defendant bore the burden of establishing any defence he wished to rely on. However, the House of Lords (hereinafter referred as HOL) held that it was a misdirection and rejected this approach. Viscount Sankey LC stated, which is now a famous passage named the golden threat rule: “ Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of...
Words: 851 - Pages: 4
...for a particular tort, providing the existence of all the essentials of that tort, the defendant would be liable for the same. The defendant may, however even in such a case avoid his liability by taking the plea of some defence; Volenti Non Fit Injuria is one amongst them. WHAT IS VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA Volenti non fit Injuria or the defence of consent, when a person consents to the infliction of some harm upon himself, he has no remedy for that in tort. In case the plaintiff voluntarily agrees to suffer some harm, he is not allowed to complain for that and his consent serve as a good defence against him. No man can enforce a right which he has voluntarily waived or abandoned. Consent to suffer harm may be expressed or implied. Volenti non fit Injuria is a defence of limited application in tort law. A direct translation of Latin phrase “Volenti non fit Injuria” is to one volunteer, no harm is done. Where the defence of Volenti non fit Injuria applies it operates as a complete defence absolving the Defendant of all liability. The defence of Volenti non fit Injuria requires a freely entered and voluntary agreement by the Claimant, in full knowledge of the circumstances, to absolve the Defendant of all legal consequences of their actions. Let’s understand this with the help of a case law , in this case plaintiff was a spectator at motor car race being held at Brookland on a track owned by the defendant company. During the race, there was a collision between two cars, one...
Words: 1597 - Pages: 7
...The Auditor-General Audit Report No.8 2005–06 Performance Audit Management of the Personnel Management Key Solution (PMKeyS) Implementation Project Department of Defence Australian National Audit Office © Commonwealth of Australia 2005 ISSN 1036–7632 ISBN 0 642 80865 1 COPYRIGHT INFORMATION This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit Canberra ACT 2600 http://www.ag.gov.au/cca ANAO Audit Report No.8 2005–06 Management of the Personnel Management Key Solution (PMKeyS) Implementation Project 2 Canberra ACT 26 August 2005 Dear Mr President Dear Mr Speaker The Australian National Audit Office has undertaken a performance audit in the Department of Defence. in accordance with the authority contained in the Auditor-General Act 1997. Pursuant to Senate Standing Order 166 relating to the presentation of documents when the Senate is not sitting, I present the report of this audit and the accompanying brochure. The report is titled Management of the Personnel Management Key Solution (PMKeyS) Implementation Project. Following its presentation and receipt, the report will be placed on the Australian...
Words: 24187 - Pages: 97
...Affairs. All rights reserved. This Publication may be reproduced in full or in part if accompanied with the following citation: Keatinge, Patrick & Tonra, Ben, European Security and Defence Policy and the Lisbon Treaty, Institute of International and European Affairs, Dublin, Ireland, July 2009. As an independent forum, the Institute does not express opinions of its own. The views expressed in its publications are solely the responsibility of the authors. ISBN: 978-1-907079-04-7 EAN: 9781907079047 About the authors Patrick Keatinge is Emeritus Associate Professor of Political Science at Trinity College Dublin and Chairperson of the IIEA working group on ESDP. Ben Tonra is Jean Monnet Professor of European Foreign, Security and Defence Policy at the UCD College of Human Sciences and Project Leader of the IIEA working group on ESDP. Cover photograph © Aidan Crawley, Defence Forces, May 2008 Graphic design, type and layout by Brian Martin European Security and Defence Policy and The Lisbon Treaty © Institute of International and European Affairs 2009 Foreword This briefing paper is another brilliant contribution to the Institute’s background work on issues arising out of the Lisbon Treaty by Professors Ben Tonra and Patrick Keatinge. It describes the reality of European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), as it has developed over the past six years and explains each of the relevant provisions in the Lisbon Treaty. It puts Ireland’s particular position in ESDP in the context...
Words: 13605 - Pages: 55
