Research Paper on Court Cases and Ethical Behavior

Introduction

The US legislature has always had issues with ethical conduct in their ruling and argument in court cases. Ethical matters have ever surfaced in whatever decision that has been made in history. Ethics are the codes of conduct that provide the moral obligation that needs to be followed while delivering judgment or in the amendment of laws. Ethical matters have always been the central issue in any decision made by any ruling judge in the United States. There have been many issues where the certain verdict has been termed as unethical and some even protesting such allegations to court. Ethical matters need to be observed by the judges and such is the requirement of the law in all states. Failure to follow such laws poses a question on the integrity of the legislative council of the states and whether the judge deserves to pass the law. Ethics are regulations that are set to safeguard both the citizens and the laws of the country. Many court cases have failed to observe the ethical issues that are the requirement in their ruling, and that will be the main focus in this article. Some cases will be highlighted which saw moral matters and those that did not find such regulations.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The States vs. O'Malley

The background information to the O'Malley case involved a dispute over the operation of Origin fire protection. Michael Pinski hired the firm for the removal and the disposal of insulation from a building that Michel owned. It is recorded that the insulation contained asbestos which a mineral which is known to cause cancer. The employees of O'Malley knew of the existence of the asbestos in the roofing, and still, they executed their duties as per the instruction is given by their boss. It was unethical for O'Malley to operate not having a license to remove the dangerous asbestos which would have caused health issues to other people. Another unethical instance that was realized in the case is that the employees of O'Malley were not also trained professionally to comply with the state regulations for handling the asbestos. (Bledsoe, M. J. (2017).

The firm dumped the asbestos in various sites wherein one site the debris was disposed of in soil that leads to cleaning which cost 50,000 dollars. The court found O'Malley guilty, and he was then convicted to ten years for removal, transportation, the dumping of the asbestos. O'Malley petitioned his case arguing that the clean air conduct requires the government to regulate the hazardous substances including the asbestos. It was needed for the government first to monitor if the asbestos material was among the ones governed by the clean air conduct. In the first approach, O'Malley was unethical to employ workers who were not trained to handle the hazardous material.

Such material if mishandled can be being harmful as they can lead to cancer and other infections. Ethics requires that any activity carried out observes the safety measures of the people living around the place first before setting up the operation. The state, on the other hand, handled the O'Malley case unethically because they are obligated to safeguard the citizens of the country. They should have checked if the material was under the law for regulation before passing their judgment. Since the Clean air act requires that no one violates its provision knowingly, the court, therefore, acted unethically by sentencing O'Malley. The decision by the court showed unethical practices that the court committed. O'Malley also endangered the lives of the people around where he disposed the material which was known to0 be very dangerous.

Kaye v. Rosefielde

It is a case that had a huge demonstration of examples of ethical issues that are highlighted in the entire ruling. It was a case that had ethical practices in the house. The evidence was very relevant because it demonstrated how in house lawyers put out their defense on against ethical issues. Mr. Rosefielde an in-house for housing which was owned by Mr. Kaye. Mr. Rosefielde formed a micro firm at the side of Mr. Kaye in the consent of Mr. Kaye, but the problem is that he did not follow the professional conduct act. Not complying with professional law is unethical to an officer. Although Mr. Kaye knew what was happening, Mr. Rosefielde ought to have followed the set professional rules which are the ethical approach to set any new firm. (Krieger, L. H., Best, R. K., & Edelman, L. B. (2015).

In the case, Mr. Kaye sued Mr. Rosefielde for not complying with the professional act which was an ethical approach as it was obligated of him to have him sued. Ethically, upon the decision to leave and start another small firm alongside the one he was before, Mr. Rosefielde should have been in writing for another attorney to look into the transaction. Mr. Rosefielde had his side of argument stating that to some extent he was acting as the company officer and not as the in-house attorney. It meant that Mr. Rosefielde in the ethical light was right and that he was allowed to operate in that manner. Ethical issue in this court matter requires that no one gets equity at the expense of his client at whatever situation. The ethics that apply in this case also needs that one follow the professional act even when they are not the council but also as the employees of a firm. Ethical practices apply in all places of operation, and it requires one to be professional enough to follow and adhere to the set regulations.

Yanez vs. Plummer

It is another case that highlighted instances of ethics in court ruling and the conduct of court processes. The case was about a situation that happened in a factory. It included a bystander and a witness who confessed to the jury that the firm was not in any way faulty. The deposition by the employee of the firm was taken. It was found that the employee of the company had misled the firm investigator. The employee was seemingly hiding some facts that were required by the court at the time of trial. It is very unethical for an employee of a firm to hide relevant information to a court proceeding as it is a violation of the courthouse rules on confessions. (Hamilton, M. (2015).

The employee was later convinced to change his line of the story after confessing that he was withholding crucial information to the court. It is ethical and required by the law to tell the truth in the courthouse. Observing such codes of conduct in the in a proceeding is the ethical approach. It does not matter if the decision will affect their company negatively, but it is required by the law to tell the truth and open up whenever your testimony is needed. It is ethical that in-house counsel to be watchful of the possible conflicts that may arise whenever they are in court representing their clients. Court cases have always had a series of issues that require great care is observed because they are obliged to act ethically and that no illegalities happen which may lead to unethical practices. The employee had to disclose the hidden information which was ethical for him. Disclosing of information to any court proceeding is very unethically and may lead to one perjuring himself in front of a jury.

Conclusion

Ethics are the building blocks that give way to how employees and professionals should conduct themselves. They are the regulations that require individuals to observe the moral standards and the obligation to their activities as stipulated by the law. Many people tend to act unethically for instance in business and other places, and this has led to harmful results at the end. The ethical provisions require that the actions of individuals are in line with the human rights act and that such actions can cause no harm. Court cases and proceeding are one of the places where ethical activities need to be observed. Judges and the accused need to act and present their claims according to the provisions of the court. Lying to a jury very unethical and this can be an offense as by the laws. Arguments in court should be presented in the utmost faith, and there should be no bad faith. The judges too should observe that they follow the regulations of the law and ensure that they don't convict anyone wrongly. Unethical acts by the judges involve practices where the jury does not look into the evidence not and adequately providing a rationale jurisdiction to the case.

References

Bledsoe, M. J. (2017). Ethical legal and social issues of biobanking: past, present, and future. Biopreservation and biobanking, 15(2), 142-147.

Hamilton, M. (2015). Risk-needs assessment: Constitutional and ethical challenges. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 52, 231.

Krieger, L. H., Best, R. K., & Edelman, L. B. (2015). When "best practices" win, employees lose symbolic compliance and judicial inference in federal equal employment opportunity cases. Law & Social Inquiry, 40(4), 843-879.

Vapnek, J. (2016). Cultural Factors and Ethical Integrity. Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev., 39, 123.