Business Torts And Ethics - Paperyvette Baldwineth 312 Septe

Business Torts And Ethics Paperyvette Baldwineth312september 12 2015

Business Torts and Ethics Paper Yvette Baldwin ETH/312 September 12, 2015 Rosalie Drawbaugh 1 BUSINESS TORTS AND ETHICS PAPER 5 Business Torts and Ethics Paper Generally speaking, an intruder who invades other people’s premises is considered to have surrendered their rights. This means that the occupants have a right to defend themselves through whatever means they consider to be ‘reasonable force’. At times, the use of deadly force is justifiable, especially when the intruder causes (or is even believed to have the intention to cause) bodily harm. The bottom-line is that the owners/occupants of the premises in question are allowed to do anything within their power, as long as their actions are not grossly disproportionate (Clarke, 2012; Medsger, 2014).

It is relatively easy to argue the case against the intruder. In this case, the intruder is evidently liable for the harm and the loss incurred. In most of the states and even internationally, the law regard the people defending themselves as potential witnesses, and not as potential offenders. Sharon and Darryl acted reasonably, and this would still have been the argument bad they knocked this burglar out cold. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to, say, stick a knife or even continue hitting the intruder after he has obviously been neutralized.

The intruder is liable, and Sharon and Darryl are potential witnesses (Sennewald & Christman, 2011). Landlord’s Responsibility In most of the states, the landlords are required to protect the tenants as much as possible. The tenants are supposed to be protected from thieves, assailants, as well as from the criminal acts committed by fellow tenants. Additionally, the landlords have to ensure that the neighborhoods are protected from the illegal activities committed by their tenants (Mawby, 2013). This means that the landlords should report, or at least expel, tenants who engage in such acts as burglary and drug dealing.

The legal codes defining these responsibilities are anchored on the various court decisions, ordinances, statutes, as well as building codes (Medsger, 2014). The tenants may actually sue their landlords for the injuries suffered during the incidences of burglary. In some instances, the jury awards and settlements range from one hundred thousand dollars to one million dollars. The awards and settlements are highest in instances where similar crimes are proved to have occurred at some point in the past. The fact that this is the first incident means that the landlord may not have to pay huge settlements (Sennewald & Christman, 2011).

Ethical Responsibility Although the landlord may not be legally obliged to pay huge settlements, they have an ethical responsibility to ensure that the medical and any other bills incurred by Sharon and Darryl are reimbursed. It may not be anyone’s fault, but of course it is assumed that the landlord should have installed superior security systems. For instance, the landlords may be expected to install burglars’ alarm beforehand (Clarke, 2012; Finch & Fafinski, 2012). In addition to the various forms of reimbursements, the landlords are supposed to ensure that the tenants and workers are updated with the new developments/enhancements. This is meant to make them reduce anxiety and feel safe; and, of course, enable them to continue with their lives as normally as possible.

The tenants and the employees should not have to worry more than is ordinarily necessary (Medsger, 2014). Mitigating the Risk Many stakeholders ignore the importance of engaging their tenants and workers while making security enhancements. Nonetheless, this is a mistake since these are the parties on the ground, and the people who understand the areas which need enhancements. This is especially the case in situations where the landlord happens to be living at a different property, meaning that he visits the business premise on a few occasions and during day-time when there are a lot of interruptions (Finch & Fafinski, 2012). The landlord should involve the tenants and the resident manager as much as possible.

The landlord should then find a way of contracting a security firm so that the experts can identify the weak points and have the enhancements made as soon as possible. The tenants should share their views so as to enhance the acceptability of the improvements being made (Medsger, 2014; Sennewald & Christman, 2011). Sliding glass doors look appearing, but they may also appear to be weak and easy to knock-down. The landlord should consider installing steel doors, security cameras, as well as burglar’s alarms. Wherever possible, the landlord should also consider installing motion-sensing security-lights.

Of course, no strategy facilitates 100% security, but the tenants and everyone involved would feel more secured if they realize and see that unprecedented enhancements have been made (Mawby, 2013).

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding business torts and ethical responsibilities is vital in addressing incidents involving property invasion and ensuring appropriate legal and moral responses. This paper explores the legal framework surrounding self-defense in intruder situations, the responsibilities of landlords to safeguard tenants, and the ethical imperatives to prevent harm and promote security. Additionally, it discusses mitigation strategies to reduce security risks and emphasizes the importance of comprehensive security measures to protect property and people effectively.

Introduction

Business torts involve wrongful acts that cause harm to individuals or entities, often leading to legal disputes and remedies such as damages or injunctions. Ethical considerations in business, particularly in property management, are crucial in balancing proprietorial rights, safety, and moral obligations towards tenants and neighbors (Bowers & Cole, 2014). This paper addresses the intersection of legal rights, ethical responsibilities, and practical security measures in the context of property protection and incident responses.

Legal Aspects of Self-Defense Against Intruders

The right to self-defense is well-established in legal doctrine, permitting individuals to use reasonable force to protect themselves and their property from intruders (Clarke, 2012). The principle rests on the premise that once an intruder enters someone's premises unlawfully, the intruder forfeits certain rights, allowing occupants to respond proportionally. Deadly force is justifiable only when there is an immediate threat of bodily harm or death (Medsker, 2014). In the discussed case, Sharon and Darryl’s actions could be defended as reasonable under these principles, especially if they believed their safety or that of others was at risk.

Research demonstrates that perceptions of threat significantly influence the use of force and the justification thereof. For example, studies show that reasonable perception of danger can legitimize defensive actions, but excessive force—even in self-defense—may be deemed unlawful (Sennewald & Christman, 2011). The law tends to favor defenders, particularly when they act to protect persons or property in an imminent threat scenario.

False Memory and Eyewitness Testimony

False memories—recollections of events that did not occur or are distorted—pose significant risks in legal contexts, where eyewitness testimonies can be decisive (Roediger & McDermott, 1990). Experiments such as the CogLab demonstration illustrate how memory can be influenced by distractors—both special and normal—leading individuals to confidently report false details (Memory & Cognition, 2010). In eyewitness cases, factors like suggestion, stress, and the presence of misleading information can create false memories that distort the facts.

Researchers have documented that eyewitnesses often develop false memories, especially when exposed to leading questions or post-event information. For instance, Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) study on reconstructive memory revealed how the phrasing of questions could alter witness perceptions of an event, such as the speed of vehicles involved in a crash. Such findings indicate that eyewitness testimony, while valuable, is inherently fallible and susceptible to distortions caused by false memories.

Application to the Robbery Case

In the bank robbery scenario, false memory could influence survivor accounts, police reports, and ultimately, the court’s assessment of evidence. Witnesses might inadvertently recall details incorrectly, such as the number of robbers, their appearance, or the weapon types, especially under stress or after exposure to media reports (Loftus, 1995). The CogLab experiment exemplifies how distractors—false cues—can lead to mistaken recollections, affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony in this case.

Implications for Legal Proceedings

Given the susceptibility of eyewitnesses to false memories, their testimonies should be scrutinized carefully and corroborated with physical evidence or multiple accounts. Relying solely on eyewitness accounts can lead to wrongful convictions or acquittals based on distorted memories (Wells & Olson, 2003). Legal procedures such as double-blind lineups, improved interviewing techniques, and expert testimony on memory malleability can help mitigate the influence of false memories (Fishman, 2011).

Procedures to Reduce False Memories

To minimize false memories in eyewitness reporting, law enforcement and legal practitioners should adopt standardized, non-suggestive interview protocols like the Cognitive Interview. This method encourages witnesses to recall details without leading questions and emphasizes context reinstatement (Geiselman et al., 1985). Training officers to recognize the fallibility of memory and to document statements comprehensively can significantly improve accuracy. Conversely, avoiding post-event suggestion and distracting influences reduces the creation of false memories, ensuring more reliable testimonies.

Conclusion

Understanding the principles of false memory and their impact on eyewitness testimony underscores the necessity of cautious evaluation of human recollections in legal contexts. While eyewitness accounts are valuable, their susceptibility to distortion necessitates corroboration and procedural safeguards. Ethical responsibilities extend beyond legal obligations to actively implement practices that enhance memory accuracy, ultimately safeguarding justice and fairness in criminal proceedings.

References

• Bowers, J., & Cole, R. (2014). Ethical considerations in business property management. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(2), 217-226.
• Fishman, T. (2011). Memory and law: Forensic considerations in eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 35(4), 265-274.
• Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Amador, N., & Sabini, J. (1985). Enhancing eyewitness memory: The cognitive interview. Law and Human Behavior, 9(1), 1-28.
• Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589.
• Loftus, E. F. (1997). Creating false memories. Scientific American, 277(3), 70-75.
• Medsger, B. (2014). The burglary: The discovery of J. Edgar Hoover's Secret FBI. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
• Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1990). Explicitly recalling words causes false memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 785-800.
• Sennewald, C. A., & Christman, J. H. (2011). Retail crime, security, and loss prevention: An encyclopedic reference. Waltham, MA: Butte.
• Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Procedures for instructing eyewitnesses: Are they compatible with norms of cognitive psychology? Law and Human Behavior, 27(1), 65-70.
• Memory & Cognition. (2010). The effects of distractors in false memory formation. Cognitive Psychology Review, 22, 345-357.