The Request Made By Mr. Mcintosh

The defense has just discovered a witness whose statement is favourable to their case 45 days prior to the scheduled beginning of the trial. While it is required by law in the State of California to declare any reasonably anticipated witnesses and turn over statements they have made, there would be no technical basis for objection if the defense were to withhold this information and call the witness unexpectedly on the day of the trial. Because it can be argued that the defense decided the day of to call the witness, there will be no official complaint. However, there are important moral ramifications in this situation, as well as creating doubt as to the defense’s credibility.

In relation towards the wrongfully doings that I now am being asked to attended a meeting at Enfield civic center about, so to be questioned, I find it overwhelmingly unjustified that I have to attended at such a meeting, the reason’s given by myself to why I understand it not to be right or fair that I have been ordered to attended for this meeting or I therefore risk my home being taken, by way of a position order being placed against my person, are given

“Testimonials during court hearings are performed under oath, hence the statements of an individual being examined are assumed to be true and no other statement should be falsified or forged. When the officer does not pronounce the truth in court, he or she is still capable of providing a reason for his deception, based on a substitute arrangement, such as when he or she is operating as a witness to the prosecution and is not considered as the defendant in a court case. However, it is also required that the officer is conscious of the rules of the court system that he or she has sworn to tell the truth during examination” (Chevigny , 1969).

People from all walks of life face many ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas have consequences. Our worldview determines how we deal with these dilemmas, and guides us to the right decisions. In this essay, I will examine an ethical issues through my Christian worldview. I will also present other viewpoints, and compare them to mine.

In order to address the ethical question above, let’s examine the situation from the viewpoint of the two main ethical theories: Contractianism and Consequentialism.

Defendant may introduce affirmative testimony that the general estimate of his character is so favorable that the jury may infer that he would not be likely to commit the offense charged. When the defendant elects to initiate a character inquiry, not only is he permitted to call witnesses to testify from hearsay, but indeed such a witness is not allowed to base his testimony on anything but hearsay. The witness may not testify about defendant's specific acts or courses of conduct or his possession of a particular disposition or of benign mental and moral traits; nor can he testify that his own acquaintance, observation, and knowledge of defendant leads to his own independent opinion that defendant possesses a good general or specific character, inconsistent with commission of acts charged. The prosecution may pursue the inquiry with contradictory witnesses to show that damaging rumors, whether or not well-grounded, were afloat for it is not the man that he is, but the name that he has which is put in issue. Another hazard is that his own witness is subject to cross-examination as to the contents and extent of the hearsay on which he bases his conclusions, and he may be required to disclose rumors and reports that are current even if they do not affect his own conclusion. A character evidence question may not be hypothetical or assume unproven facts and ask if they would affect the conclusion. In regards to character evidence, the form of inquiry, "have you heard?" has general approval, and "do you know?" is not allowed. The defendant may introduce evidence tending to prove his good reputation; but, if he does so, it throws open the entire subject and the prosecution may then cross-examine defendant's witnesses to test their credibility and qualifications and may also introduce contradictory evidence. A character witness may be cross-examined as to an arrest

Here, The Diaries was able to capture the intricacy of the law by highlighting that in some instances, contrasting R v Cooley, a witness’s credibility is relevant in determining the truth, and should fairly be called into question. During cross-examination, the prosecutor repeatedly stated “now that is a complete and total lie, isn’t it?” in response to the witness’s assertions of memory loss. Inconsistent statements were pursued relentlessly, with the witness’s response to all irregularities being, “I may have said that, it was 3 years ago”. This exercise was conducted with the intention of undermining X’s credibility and casting doubt on his testimony that he had never seen the eight accused suspects and certainly not been “viciously hog-tied

Every day people make decisions that may have profound effect on their personal and/or professional lives as well as the lives of others. The decision people make have a foundation on their personal, cultural, and perhaps organizational values. When these values are in disagreement, an ethical dilemma occurs.

2. Prior bad acts or crimes can be utilized as evidence to prove character when it’s purpose is to

Keep in mind that, although rationale might differ, the ethical course of action for a given scenario might be the same for each philosophical approach. Be sure to state the ethical course of action as well as the rationale

Every individual will at some stage of their life, be faced with ethical dilemmas. There are no right and wrong answers to the dilemmas a person will face. Every individual has their own guiding morals and principles in how they base their decisions both personally and professionally. Professionally, individuals should always follow the set Code of Ethics for their profession. This enables the individual to seek guidance when faced with an ethical dilemma. Personally, it is up to the individual to determine what they deem right or wrong. Having said that, there will always be some grey areas. What one person may see as an ethical or moral dilemma, another person may

Since the study of ethics is all about what is right and what is wrong, it is not possible to come to a correct conclusion unless one is directly appointed by God to make this conclusion. God is the only One who can correctly decree what is ethical and unethical; we as imperfect humans should not even attempt to do this job.

How can the ethical dilemma be addressed from a Christian worldview (i.e., what guidance from a Biblical perspective could be applied to understand and possibly resolve the ethical dilemma)?

After careful consideration of several theories, I have come to find the Revelational Christian Ethic as the one that best reflects my approach to ethics and moral reasoning. The Bible is its primary source in conjunction with careful thinking and sensitivity to the heart and conscience. Taking all of these things into account, it provides reasonable and fairly complete guidance pertaining to any and all ethical decisions. Where there may be a question, one can use analogous induction and/or utilize grammatical-historical-contextual hermeneutic of scripture in order

After careful consideration of several theories, I have come to find the Revelational Christian Ethic as the one that best reflects my approach to ethics and moral reasoning. The Bible is its primary source in conjunction with careful thinking and sensitivity to the heart and conscience. Taking all of these things into account, it provides reasonable and fairly complete guidance pertaining to any and all ethical dilemmas. Where there may be question, one can use analogous induction and/or utilize grammatical-historical-contextual hermeneutic to scripture in order to