Code of Ethics Putting it into Context of Society - Free Essay Example

Almost every profession has a code of ethics it must abide by. A few individuals seem to think they are an exception. One of these individuals is Volkswagen. Volkswagen created a verity of cars stating that it could take diesel and at the same time meet the emission testing requirements. They were seen as a revolutionizing car that had all four factor an engine needs performance, emissions, durability, and fuel economy. Those were false claims made by Volkswagen to cover up the violations of the code of the ethics. The code of ethics for my major of Electrical and Computer Engineering is the same as many of the other engineering code of ethics. It is called IEEE Code of Ethics and it has a few codes to abide by. Starting with putting public safety first, to comply with the ethics code put into place and have the ability to maintain a balance when development continuous, and to make known any factor that may endanger the public. Second to avoid existing or to become aware of situations that can be used for personal gain, and to make it known to those who are involved. Third be truthful and practical about information being distributed. Fourth no bribery. Fifth improve the communities understanding and capabilities of newly coming technology. Sixth improve our abilities and to take other jobs out of our jurisdiction only if qualified or if limitations are made known. Seventh honestly reviews others, work and to make errors known and to credit those who contributed. Eighth treat all people equally and avoid racism. Ninth avoid harming others in any way possible. Finally, to assist colleagues and co-workers with their jobs and to help them maintain the code of ethics. Volkswagen broke many of these codes of ethics, but most importantly they released false claims. Volkswagen wanted to get themselves ahead of the game by creating a car that could convert diesel and still meet with the emission testing. They lied. To create a good engine four components are needed performance, emissions, durability, and fuel economy. Volkswagen sacrificed the emission portion to produce high spec engines. They cheated emission testing by writing a few lines of code into the cars computer. These lines of code will tell the car when it is being tested and it will display fake data. That is how Volkswagen covered up its violations. The code of ethics was created for a reason and it should always be there. The code of ethics is needed in the engineering field, including Electrical and Computer Engineering, because there are many ways to go wrong. People will start to develop things only for their personal gain not knowing what some of the consequences may be. Others may use their knowledge to put peoples lives in danger. Some may even cheat the system to get what they want. That is exactly what Volkswagen did. They broke the code of ethics and a few laws just to get their way.

Alis Liability for Murder Essay - 275 Words

Ali's Liability for Murder (Other (Not Listed) Sample) Content: Student nameTitle: Ali's liability for murderSubject: Criminal lawSupervisorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s nameDate of submissionThis paper intends to establish whether Ali is liable of the deaths of Steve and Dana by examining whether the requirements of criminal law in relation to criminal liability have been met to warrant Alià ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s criminal liability. Under criminal law jurisprudence, the existence of criminal liability is only justified if a person who has been accused of having committed a criminal act is found to have both the mens rea and actus reus. Mens rea is simply the the guilty mind while actus reus is described as the actual criminal act. For one to be guilty of a criminal act, these two elements must be proved. If one of the above elements is not satisfied criminal liability cannot be established.[N Lacey ,C Wells, O Quick ,Reconstructing Criminal Law: Text and Materials ( 1st Edition ,Cambridge University Press 2003 )60] To establish Alià ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s criminal l iability as a result of the deaths of both Steve and Dana, it is important that mens rea and actus reus be established. As pertains to the actus reus in the current case scenario, Ali can possibly be blamed for committing an act that led to Steveà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s death as well as contributing to Danaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s suicide. Nonetheless, the actual actus reus is hard to prove in the current case scenario as the acts leading to the deaths of both Steve and Dana do not constitute to sufficient actus reus on the part of Ali. As a matter of fact, criminal liability must accrue out of the coexistence of the above elements.[Reconstructing Criminal Law( n 1 above)] For instance, if A conceives the idea of killing B on a Monday but accidentally runs over B on a Tuesday, A is not guilty of murder. That being the case, Ali cannot be said to have committed the two murders as he did not actually commit acts that led to the actual deaths of the two. The only evidence that can be used against him is a mer e feeling of hate towards Steve and the excitement of inheriting the property of his wife. The fire that led to the unfortunate incident was accidentally cased by Ali and was never intended to kill Steve. In fact, leaving Steve to burn in the club was only an afterthought .Ali felt that it was a good opportunity for him to let Steve burn inside the burning club at the time of accident. This feeling and taking advantage of the fire leaves Ali with enough mens rea as intention to kill can be traced. His decision to let Steve burn constitutes an intention to kill which can be used against him assuming Steve died in the fire. In Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 the defendant was found to possess sufficient mens rea for committing murder for committing an act that she had foreseen that would cause grievous bodily harm. In the present scenario, Ali left Steve to burn in the club an act that exposed Steve to a probable danger of burning to death which was in fact the reason behind him leaving Stev e in the burning club.[J O'riordan, A2 law for OCR (1 edn, Oxford, Heinemann Educational 2003)] According to the facts presented in the present case scenario, Steve did not die in the fire but his cause of death was purely due to the negligence of the para-medic who attended him. Steveà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s death is therefore as a result of medical negligence as opposed to the fire caused by Ali.A rational argument that Alià ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s action of leaving Steve to burn in the club contributed to his death as he could not have been exposed to medical negligence if Ali had not left him in the danger of burning would seem to hold Ali liable for Steveà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s death. In California v Lewis (1899) (California), the defendant short his the victim causing him a band wound which could have worsened with time. The victim later cut his own throat leading to his own death. It was held that the defendant was still guilty of manslaughter even though the as shooting the victim remained an operative substa ntial cause of death. What would expel this kind of argument is the real cause of fire. The fire was due to accident as opposed to intentional setting of the said fire. The concept of operative substantial cause would therefore prove to be difficult to sustain.[J Oà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬riordan(n 3 above)] Alià ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s criminal liability in Danaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s suicide cannot be justified due to the following reasons. In crimes relating to suicide, one can only be guilty of encouraging suicide or committing a suicide pact. UK law provides under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 that a person is guilty of an offense if it can be proved that he or she has acted in a manner that of encourages or aids another to commit suicide. It is also an offence if one is found to have committed an act that amounts to an attempted suicide of another party, and that act was projected to promote or assist suicide. Under the UK law, this offence is known as encouraging or assisting suicide.[Director of Public Prosecutions Cpsgovuk, '' (Cpsgovuk,/publications/prosecution/assisted_suicide_policy.html accessed 8 ... Alis Liability for Murder Essay - 275 Words Ali's Liability for Murder (Other (Not Listed) Sample) Content: Student nameTitle: Ali's liability for murderSubject: Criminal lawSupervisorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s nameDate of submissionThis paper intends to establish whether Ali is liable of the deaths of Steve and Dana by examining whether the requirements of criminal law in relation to criminal liability have been met to warrant Alià ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s criminal liability. Under criminal law jurisprudence, the existence of criminal liability is only justified if a person who has been accused of having committed a criminal act is found to have both the mens rea and actus reus. Mens rea is simply the the guilty mind while actus reus is described as the actual criminal act. For one to be guilty of a criminal act, these two elements must be proved. If one of the above elements is not satisfied criminal liability cannot be established.[N Lacey ,C Wells, O Quick ,Reconstructing Criminal Law: Text and Materials ( 1st Edition ,Cambridge University Press 2003 )60] To establish Alià ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s criminal l iability as a result of the deaths of both Steve and Dana, it is important that mens rea and actus reus be established. As pertains to the actus reus in the current case scenario, Ali can possibly be blamed for committing an act that led to Steveà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s death as well as contributing to Danaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s suicide. Nonetheless, the actual actus reus is hard to prove in the current case scenario as the acts leading to the deaths of both Steve and Dana do not constitute to sufficient actus reus on the part of Ali. As a matter of fact, criminal liability must accrue out of the coexistence of the above elements.[Reconstructing Criminal Law( n 1 above)] For instance, if A conceives the idea of killing B on a Monday but accidentally runs over B on a Tuesday, A is not guilty of murder. That being the case, Ali cannot be said to have committed the two murders as he did not actually commit acts that led to the actual deaths of the two. The only evidence that can be used against him is a mer e feeling of hate towards Steve and the excitement of inheriting the property of his wife. The fire that led to the unfortunate incident was accidentally cased by Ali and was never intended to kill Steve. In fact, leaving Steve to burn in the club was only an afterthought .Ali felt that it was a good opportunity for him to let Steve burn inside the burning club at the time of accident. This feeling and taking advantage of the fire leaves Ali with enough mens rea as intention to kill can be traced. His decision to let Steve burn constitutes an intention to kill which can be used against him assuming Steve died in the fire. In Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 the defendant was found to possess sufficient mens rea for committing murder for committing an act that she had foreseen that would cause grievous bodily harm. In the present scenario, Ali left Steve to burn in the club an act that exposed Steve to a probable danger of burning to death which was in fact the reason behind him leaving Stev e in the burning club.[J O'riordan, A2 law for OCR (1 edn, Oxford, Heinemann Educational 2003)] According to the facts presented in the present case scenario, Steve did not die in the fire but his cause of death was purely due to the negligence of the para-medic who attended him. Steveà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s death is therefore as a result of medical negligence as opposed to the fire caused by Ali.A rational argument that Alià ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s action of leaving Steve to burn in the club contributed to his death as he could not have been exposed to medical negligence if Ali had not left him in the danger of burning would seem to hold Ali liable for Steveà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s death. In California v Lewis (1899) (California), the defendant short his the victim causing him a band wound which could have worsened with time. The victim later cut his own throat leading to his own death. It was held that the defendant was still guilty of manslaughter even though the as shooting the victim remained an operative substa ntial cause of death. What would expel this kind of argument is the real cause of fire. The fire was due to accident as opposed to intentional setting of the said fire. The concept of operative substantial cause would therefore prove to be difficult to sustain.[J Oà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬riordan(n 3 above)] Alià ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s criminal liability in Danaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s suicide cannot be justified due to the following reasons. In crimes relating to suicide, one can only be guilty of encouraging suicide or committing a suicide pact. UK law provides under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 that a person is guilty of an offense if it can be proved that he or she has acted in a manner that of encourages or aids another to commit suicide. It is also an offence if one is found to have committed an act that amounts to an attempted suicide of another party, and that act was projected to promote or assist suicide. Under the UK law, this offence is known as encouraging or assisting suicide.[Director of Public Prosecutions Cpsgovuk, '' (Cpsgovuk,/publications/prosecution/assisted_suicide_policy.html accessed 8 ...