Risky Shift

A host of incidences, some on the field but most off the field, have threatened the team's ability to capitalize on its immediate success as the 2012 season fast approaches. And in light of the 24/7 nature of media today, such incidences can have a determinedly negative impact on team

The need for judges and magistrates to take into account individual factors of a case in particular highlights the great role played by discretion in this process. The requirement of these judicial officers to take into account the facts, circumstances and seriousness of the offence as well as certain subjective factors about the offender as set out by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) highlights the strong role of discretion which is involved in this particular step of the sentencing process. In this step of the sentencing process, the use of judicial discretion results in a fair and equitable decision being made as the case is judged on its own merits. For example, Former NSW Chief Justice Anthony Murray Gleeson stated that “judicial discretion is most important – and most difficult to sustain – during the sentencing process” in a NSW Parliament publication. This clearly highlights the importance of discretion when considering the individual facts of any particular case.

Plea bargaining and prosecutorial discretion are two crucial components in criminal procedure. The prosecution has leverage over which charges they wish to pursue against a defendant, while the defendant has the choice of adjudication of guilt. Being that time is a critical factor, each party has to weigh the pros and cons before making any decisions. The prosecution aims to enforce the harsher punishment where more time is served, whereas the defendant intends on serving the least time possible. Both subjects use strategically approaches that best benefit their party.

Some people don’t understand that football is not an easy game. Football is one of America’s favorite sports. A team winning can easily change a fan’s mood for the better. Our team works very hard to win and compete with other teams, but it takes a lot more work than just showing up on Friday night and playing. In order to get ready for a game a player will need to complete steps for the day before and the day of the game.

The jury system is an old institution, predating England’s Magna Carta. Its essence in providing checks and balances, and allowing fair trial by peers is virtuous. Granting juries the power and discretion we do, expresses our trust in an institution that is fundamental to our vision of democratic governance, and our confidence that jury verdicts can be impartial, and accurate. The vital role in which the jury plays in

The U.S. jury system is marked by its relatively strong credibility and positive public opinion. Two clear strengths of the jury system stem from this fact; the first being that juries generally reach reasonable verdicts on guilt or damages (in civil cases) and the second being that judges generally agree with the verdicts/sentencing recommendations reached by juries. However, the source of jury strength can also be a source of weakness. There is an explored by unexplained gap between judge opinion and jury opinion in some cases that leaves some scholars baffled (i.e. cases where judges and juries come to very different conclusions about a case). In addition to this, a sharp decline in juries resolving cases at both the federal and state levels

In Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science, Dennis Devine provides a thorough examination of empirical literature related to the factors shaping juror and jury decision making and proposes a comprehensive theoretical approach to understanding the complex processes involved. Devine is an assistant professor with the Department of Psychology at Indiana University—Purdue University at Indianapolis with an expertise in jury decision-making practices. This text is a response to research and theoretical models of juror- and jury-level decision making that provide valuable insight but lack an integrative approach. As such, the purpose of this text is to examine extant research and theoretical perspectives and to consolidate this information

A Trial Chamber enjoys broad discretion in determining a sentence. The sentence must be determined by weighing and balancing all the relevant factors. The weight given to an individual factor and the balancing of all relevant factors in arriving at the sentence is at the core of a Trial Chamber’s exercise of discretion. However, a Trial Chamber’s failure to consider one of the mandatory factors listed in rule 145 (1) (b) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence can amount to a legal error in the context of challenging the Trial Chamber’s discretionary decision on sentencing.

Rules of evidence ensure, in the adversarial system, that the jury is not distracted by irrelevant material and the court does not hear any inappropriate evidence in the form of unreliable or illegally obtained evidence, opinion evidence, hearsay evidence and bad character evidence (with the exception of propensity evidence) . Ultimately, irrelevant material that would confuse the issue cannot be introduced, therefore ensuring an individual’s right to a fair trial. Contrarily, there is less reliance on strict rules of evidence and procedure in the inquisitorial system - the Judge is aware of character reports and past record and is privy to all evidence and then decides which evidence is relevant to the case. This could mean that biases are formed against the accused that could be out-dated or inaccurate, leading to an unfair trial . Therefore Western Australia’s current evidentiary regulations, assure that accused parties are taken at face value, and that justice is issued, built entirely on a case-to-case basis

Toyota faced a challenge related to the poor visibility and low quality of a supplier for the Suprima model. The Japanese brand, being related to a top quality product and a Just in Time manufacturing scheme could not afford to have stock out problems nor not meeting consumers’ demand for quality.

In the movie, The Wave it shows how easily it is to show signs of deindivuation, began to conform, and getting into risky situations. The movie explains how one person’s ideas, morals, beliefs, etc. can change as soon as they are put into a group where conformity is needed to get along. First, deindividuation which is a loss of self -awareness in groups although this is a matter of contention. Next, conformity is a behavior in accordance with socially accepted conventions or standards. Finally, there is Risky shift which is the tendency of people to make more daring decisions when they are in groups then when they are alone.

Groupthink theory often occurs without the group’s realization. Irving Janis formed 8 different symptoms that indicate groupthink. The first of these symptoms is illusions of vulnerability. This occurs when members of the group are overly optimistic and believe that nothing negative will arise from their decision. Janis describes it as taking great risks and acquiring the attitude of “everything is going to be OK, because we are a special group”. Secondly we have belief in inherent morality. This symptom is characterized as the groups thought that they could do no wrong. They believe that they have high morality, that they are right in all situations and they ignore the ethical consequences that could arise because of their decisions. As the third

As if this weren’t enough, quality problems mounted week after week. Only months later in February 2010, the NHTSA revealed that it had received claims citing another life threatening defect in the break system for the Toyota Prius. More than 400 thousand Prius recalls resulted. In April of 2010, customers reported handling issues in the Lexus brand which resulted in another recall of 9,400 Lexus cars and a “Don’t Buy: Safety Risk” rating from Consumer Reports. Also in April, the company voluntarily recalled Siennas to address a problem with corrosion on a spare tire cable. Later that month, Toyota voluntarily recalled 2003 Sequoia SUVs to improve the stability controls. 2010 Tacomas were also recalled for defective front drive shafts. Once the quality icon, Toyota had hit a really low point; so low that credit

The purpose of this report is to examine if the reasoning behind well-known car manufacturer, Toyota’s loss of revenue and leading market position is alone as a result of extensive product recalls following a fatal crash of a Lexus ES 350 on August 28th 2009. The journal article, “Toyota Crisis: Management Issue?” (Yuanyuan Feng 2010) provides an outline of the key factors that triggered the 2009 Toyota crisis, and explores whether the fall in the company’s returns by 19% were caused purely as a result of the recall and safety concerns, or something much deeper.

One potential threat for Volkswagen is that Toyota may respond strategically by also cutting its prices. However, given Toyota’s quality problems over the past year, they will not be able to lower prices, as this possibly would create the perception of lower quality.. First and foremost, Toyota needs to ensure it handles its quality problems to its customers’ satisfaction. The auto maker needs to ensure the public perception is that Toyota is being upfront, honest, and responsible in dealing with recalls and the