🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeStudy Guides420,000CA160,000

WDW101Y1 Final: WDW225 Exam Booklet - Precedents

127 views25 pages
blueduck348
12 May 2011
School
UTSG
Department
Woodsworth College Courses
Course
WDW101Y1
Professor
William Watson

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Conv icted at com mon law can judges create cri me: v. sedley 1663. Facts: sedley was observed flashing on a balcony of a building; he then urinated in a bottle and threw the bottle off the balcony. He was charged at common law with misdemeanours against the king"s peace there was no written law prohibiting this conduct at the time. He was convicted court noted that such profane actions were so frequent that morality had been neglected. King had the authority/obligation to uphold morality and peace within his territory. Delegated authority and obligation to the judges of the king"s bench as the guardians of morals (i. e. the king"s peace ) Any offence was an offence against the king as the guardian of peace and morality. Priority must be given to public safety over individual interests. No notice to the public/subjects about what is permissible and what is impermissible. Could result in discrimination in the definition/application of crime.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers

Related Documents

WDW101Y1
Final Exam
Study Guide
WDW101Y1 Final: WDW225 Exam Booklet - Precedents Quick List
blueduck348
WDW101Y1
Final Exam
Study Guide
WDW101Y1 Final: WDW225 Exam Booklet - Summary and Cases
blueduck348
WDW101Y1 Lecture : Lecture 3
blueduck348

Related Questions

Case Study #2

WHO OWNS THE ART ANYWAY?

* Moscow recently announced that the so-called Priam's Treasure (which was excavated on the site of ancient Troy between 1873 and 1890 by the German amateur archaeologist Heinrich Schlieman and then looted by the Red Army from Nazi Germany) is still in Russia at the Pushkin Museum and went on public view in early 1996, for the first time since the Second World War.

The public admission by Moscow of the Treasure's existence raises questions about the 30,000 to 100,000 other stolen works of art that the German embassy in Moscow estimates are still in Russian Hands. Whose property are they? The Germans say they are stolen and should be returned. The Russians say the Germans stole thousands of artifacts during the occupation of the Soviet Union, many of which have been disbursed into private and public collections in Europe and the United States and are impossible to trace. The Russians state that while many journalists call it theft, it is really reparation for the damages inflicted on their country in World War ll.

How can one argue with that, given the loss of millions of Russian lives during the long war and the flagrant and wanton destruction of the Russian Royal palaces during the retreat of the Germans from Leningrad (now St. Petersburg)? Who has the moral high ground here? Who has the right to the property now, 50 years after the war? Whose property is it anyway?

If the treasures had been excavated under today's standards, the Treasure would have had to remain in Turkey. It would never have gotten to Germany in the first place. Shouldn't the Turks be brought into the negotiations between the Germans and the Russians since they could have a claim on the objects taken to Germany by Schlieman 50 years before?

* What about the heirs of Frank Calvert, the British field archaeologist and diplomat, who preceded Heinrich Schlieman as excavator of Troy? They are planning to file a claim to a portion of Schlieman's Trojan treasures that were found on his land in Hisarlik, Turkey. Frank Calvert owned the eastern half of the Hisarlik mound, site of the ancient city, and the Turkish government the western half. If during the 1873-90, excavations, Schlieman recovered artifacts on Calvert's land, Calvert's heirs might have a basis for claiming a share.

In the morality of determining ownership of archeological materials, who has priority: the country of possession or the country of origin? Modern day Turkey would have a tough claim to make if it said it and Ancient Troy are in any way one and the same.

If the country of possession should have priority, then wouldn't Russia have just as much of a claim as Germany since it has possession and promises to exhibit it in 1996?

IF YOU ARE THE JUDGE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TREASURE?

Considered by many to be the founder of modern economics, Adam Smith published his masterpiece The Wealth of Nations in 1776. Smith wrote in support of market economies as feudalism in Europe was unravelling. Hence, many of his insights clashed with the ideas of his contemporaries whom continued to be drawn to less modern notions of markets as governed by duties owed, hierarchy, master and servant, and paternalism. In Smith’s view, markets are guided by the self-interests of market participants, not by obligations imposed, moral or otherwise, by religious authorities, aristocracy, and crown.

Consider the following quote taken from The Wealth of Nations:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens….Every individual…neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it….He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part in it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.

Now suppose that Jim enters the market to purchase a gallon of milk from a local dairy. Jill enters the market to contribute $100 to a charitable cause. Based on Smith’s analysis, which transaction is guided solely by self-interest? How could either transaction contribute to the public interest? Is one superior to the other in that the first transaction confers mutual economic gains to both parties while the other confers a gain to only a single party? Are two gains superior to one? Briefly discuss.

Rules: Limit your thoughts to no more than two pages total, using Microsoft Word, 12 point type in Times New Roman font. Double spaced with one inch margins throughout. Do not worry about being right or wrong, the purpose of this exercise is for you to stretch your mind and to think critically

Dennis Kozlowski: Living Large

Dennis Kozlowski came from modest circumstances. He began his career at Tyco International in 1975 as an auditor, and worked his way up the corporate ladder to become CEO in 1992. Kozlowski gained notoriety as CEO for the rapid growth and success of the company, as well as his extravagant lifestyle. He left the company in 2002 amid controversy surrounding his compensation and personal spending. In 2005, Kozlowski was convicted of crimes in relation to alleged unauthorized bonuses of $81 million, in addition to other large purchases and investments.

As CEO, Kozlowski was lauded for his risk-taking and the immense growth of the company. He launched a series of strategic mergers and acquisitions, rapidly building up the size of Tyco. During his first six years as CEO, he secured 88 deals worth over $15 billion. Strong growth was bolstered by a booming economy, and Tyco’s stock price soared as the company consistently beat Wall Street’s expectations. However, when the economy slowed, the company began to struggle.

Allegedly, Tyco paid for Kozlowski’s $30 million New York apartment, as well as personal gifts and parties, including $1 million of a $2 million birthday party for his wife. After Kozlowski paid a $20 million finding fee to a board member without proper approval, and paintings invoiced for Tyco offices ended up in Kozlowski’s apartment (among other irregularities), Kozlowski was criminally charged with looting more than $600 million of assets from Tyco and its shareholders.

While many questioned his lifestyle, others questioned the trial and conviction. Commenting on the case, civil rights lawyer Dan Ackman wrote, “It’s fair to say that Kozlowski…abused many corporate prerogatives… Still, the larceny charges at the heart of the case did not depend on whether the defendants took the money—they did—but whether they were authorized to take it.” Kozlowski asserted his innocence of the charges, stating, “There was no criminal intent here. Nothing was hidden. There were no shredded documents. All the information the prosecutors got was directly off the books and records of the company.”

Please read the article and provide the answers for following questions.

1. Do you think Dennis Kozlowski was an effective leader for Tyco International? Were his actions ethically permissible? Why or why not?

2. As CEO of a major company, how might entitlement bias have affected Kozlowski’s behavior?

3. What rationalizations do you think Kozlowski might have used to justify his behavior in his own mind?

4. If you were in Kozlowski’s position, how do you think your actions would affect the behavior of your employees? Why?

5. Can you think of any other examples of leaders who have abused the power of their position? What similarities and differences do you see between them and Kozlowski?