Assignment of Business Law

or limb.” Put into simpler words as a crime cannot be tried twice in the court of law. This law has

Accountability standards have massively improved over the years.Accountability is being held responsible to something. Standards are a certain level of success to reach in an area. Therefore, accountability standards are a level of quality that an individual is held responsible for. We have changed how we view these standards as well. In the past our accountability standards has been underdeveloped. That didn’t change until President Ronald Reagan put out a report titled “A Nation At Risk” in 1983.

One who takes responsibility for those who works under his or her authority needs to have accountability at all times.

there is an antique legal doctrine that changes the crime of this case and places it under a

Criminal law is based on the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The principle is to the extent that a man is not guilty of his acts, actus in the absence of a guilty conscience, mens rea (Gardner, 2009). To this end, criminal law justice provides that the person alleging the commission of a crime must proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person(s) possessed mens rea, if the court is to hold a criminal liability against the accused. In the case of People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995) or what has come to be famously known as the O.J. Simpson Trial is a classical illustration of how highly the U.S. criminal justice regards the beyond reasonable doubt principle.

Accountability is important, because without it, there's no where to place the blame when mistakes occur. In fact, accountability covers more than just blameworthiness; responsibility, answerability, and liability also come into question when discussing the importance of accountability. The very application of the word, describes a system, in which actions, decisions, and policies are all accounted for (or: kept track of, recorded, and assessed and evaluated). Accountability can even extend into the administration of new policies, that are rendered due to obsolete rules and regulations or just out-right compliancy issues; the governance of decisions that define expectations or verify one's performance-- as well as managing and guiding

This study investigates accountability based on Giddens 's structuration theory (1984) and assumes that reality is socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1969), bounded by time and space, and that individuals are knowledgeable. These assumptions lead to the use of an interpretivist approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Yanow, 2000) that assumes social reality is multifaceted and difficult to explain using immanent rules (Giddens, 1984; Turner, 1986). As such, sensitizing concepts (Blumer, 1969; Giddens, 1984) that match the underlying assumption of the study will be used instead of definitive concepts. Definitive concepts “provide prescriptions of what to see, sensitizing concepts merely suggest directions along which to look” (Blumer, 1969, p.148). Giddens (1984) suggests the duality of structure, people 's knowledgeability, reflexive monitoring, and time-space as sensitizing concepts. Using Giddens’s conceptual apparatus to develop and test propositions is challenging and could even be seen as perverse, in light of Giddens’s express disavowal of the positivist project of proposing universal laws of society and using a hypothesis-testing, falsification approach to assessing their validity. But Giddens’s non-law “sensitizing concepts” and attendant conceptual apparatus and elaboration do contain a number of fairly direct propositions (as pointed out by Turner [1986]. So it does not really seem like such a great stretch after all to

However, defendants cannot be tried on a related matter and convicted due to an admission of guilt in their initial trial. The most common situation that presents these circumstances is a civil trial that is subsequent to a criminal trial. Had a defendant entered a plea of guilty in the former, this admission could be used as (highly convincing) evidence in civil litigation, in some cases all but eliminating the need for another trial. However, a no contest plea ensures that defendant will have to be retried for a civil matter related to his or her criminal case, and that the defendant's plea cannot be used against him.

One alternative resolution is accountability of the stakeholders - those who have an interest in or are affected by the entity's operation or actions - that the entity is telling the truth about what it's doing, and that its actions, practices, and policies are legal, ethical, and reasonably effective. There are several reasons the stakeholders may request accountability. The first one is to ensure that the actions and policies of an entity or individual are actually known, so that they can be judged; to urge the passage of laws, policies, or regulations adequate to keep the entity or individual behaving legally, ethically, and competently; to keep government, businesses, and institutions from acting unethically.

Proceeding from Kant’s philosophical perspective, humans are moral agents due to their ability to rationalize, reason and be autonomous. In order to make the claim that the international community is morally unjustified in their lack of action regarding the Rwandan genocide is because humanitarian intervention can be regarded as a perfect duty when approached from a Kantian perspective. This ideology is challenging for many critics because if this is a perfect duty then comes the question of who is to claim such responsibility. When arguing from a deontological viewpoint the “duty applies to the universal moral community as such and therefore is everybody’s responsibility. Because this duty concerns the international community as a whole, it should be discharged by that community by institutionalizing its responsibility” (Bagnoli 3). While not all critics agree that such crimes against humanity can be regarded as a perfect duty, in which “an international agency would best…protect the moral concerns of the whole community of rational beings” (Bagnoli 20), even the classification of an imperfect duty can still call for the moral obligation of a nation. In such a case the responsibility and duty to act is directed on the nations that are able to respond at a reasonable rate and with the highest efficiency (Pattison 264). At the time the genocide began in Rwanda, many nations already had citizens in Rwanda attempting to keep the peace, however the outbreak of the conflict

The landscape of higher education in the United States has been shifting, requiring institutions to satisfy increasing demands for accountability. For over a century, accreditation has served as a primary means of accountability and quality assurance in higher education (Wolff, 2005, p. 78). However, the traditional means of accreditation has come under greater scrutiny with critics asking if it remains an adequate means of accountability, serving the current needs of students, government, and the public (Eaton, 2003, p. 1). Although the federal government has depended upon a decentralized, peer review system of accreditation to keep institutions accountable for academic quality for over fifty years, increasing demands for accountability have resulted in an intense debate over who should manage accreditation.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the importance of accountability, communication, and timeliness because I was late to accountability formation. I need to be aware of what can happen when I make irresponsible decisions and how the repercussions can negatively affect me now, but also in the future.

I agree that accountability comes at the expense of government efficiency. The ability of a government to function efficiently is directly related to its capability to quickly and effectively address the problems of its constituents. As a result, greater accountability at times can delay or even compromise the ability of governments to function efficiently. The issue that arises, however, is that of whether we can have both accountability and government efficiency within the context of the EU. While some scholars such as Hix have argued that greater contestation of elections in the European Parliament or other measures would increase accountability, others have argued that many reforms would do little to change the underlying functioning of

Accountability refers to the duty that the elected government has to its people while it is in office . With regards to a majoritarian system, power and accountability lie in the hands of the ruling party therefore the government is fully liable to it’s citizens. However, in proportional representation, the government is comprised of many political parties who jointly make decisions. ‘Ambiguity and compromise are introduced on a secondary level whenever coalitions are formed’ . Essentially a particular party cannot be held liable in a coalition government

One of the key distinctions between evaluation and research is evaluation places a value judgment on something (Mathison, 2008; Weiss, 1972). Evaluating something does not necessarily lead to accountability, but the process of accountability does involve making a value judgment and hence requires evaluation (Mathison, 2009). Ebrahim (2003) identifies five means of accountability; evaluation, reports and disclosure statements, participation, self-regulation, and social audits. As such there is no question evaluation can play a role in accountability. The question is more what type of accountability can and does evaluation contribute to?