chapter 1 Business Law SCM

The case study is from Chapter 1, Case #2, page 22.  Case analyses are expected to show critical thinking and be adequately supported with at least three (3) correctly cited references and in-text citations to support your thoughts.  One of these references may be the textbook. Each paper should include a synopsis of the issue at hand and an analysis of what should happen next for the particular situation. Each paper will be written using APA format and be at least 1-2 double-spaced pages (not including cover sheet, references, etc).

When former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was on trial, the judge was asked to keep the identities of the jurors hidden from the community. The request was unusual because it violates the legal practice of permitting the public to have access to information about jurors in order to build public faith in the objectivity of the legal system. Despite this principle, the judge ordered that the identities of the jury members be kept secret to prevent the jurors from being influenced by email, blogging, texting, Facebook, tweats, and other electronic media. The appeals court urged the judge to reconsider the ban, arguing that denying the public access to the identity of the jury flies in the face of the long-standing legal tradition of accessibility and candor. Using utilitarianism, construct an argument that upholds the judges original ruling. Explain each argument and determine which of the two positions you prefer.

Needs rewrite

Case for Utilitarianism

Definition

This is a normative philosophy or ethics holding that, the best moral action is that which brings maximum satisfaction or pleasure in the society. It further explains that utilitarianism is the best way to measure whether an action is right or wrong. It simply means acting for common good I an action but the main interests is its consequences to elements in question.

However, utilitarianism is a form of consequence of which it contrasts the law of moral good. If consequence is the only factor to measure what is right and wrong, then all other elements might not fit into its objectives considering a case where the two elements involved have a sharp contrast. Utilitarianism also doesn’t explain on whether to measure utility as an aggregate or on average utility. This could also prove hazardous to animals as many are raised in order to feed human beings instead of improving the ecosystem.

Based on above facts, it would mean that, utilitarianism should not be the only way to rule a case as it would pose serious challenges to the society in future. In fact the ruling violates the rule of law about revealing the identity of the jury handling any public case and therefore it is a ruling against justice. This could be interpreted as permitting an action and forbidding the other without clearly bringing the difference between them. This might cause a lot of tension in future between the legal system and the state including the general public.

Though there are many reasons against upholding utilitarianism in the above case, I will choose to propose the initial ruling in this particular case. The jury was just acting for the case. To safeguard the integrity of the case, it would be fair and prudent enough to conceal the identity of the juror. This is to ensure that the ruling of the case is purely based on evidence and no pressure from outside would gain its way in to the case.

Depending on the sensitivity of the matter at hand, all actions and the threats posed by each course of action should be fully determined to avoid damaging the main objective of the intended results. If the case is regarded highly sensitive and would attract possible influence from either parties involved, then the best considerable decision should be determined not basing on the normal policies set in place by the system

More importantly, it will allow the decision process to be effective and not only is a decision reached guided by moral standard and not programmed decisions extracted from a rigid legal system. If the legal system dictates on how to arrive with decisions, then any ambiguity in the system would be a blow to the entire process of decision making.

Consequences of upholding utilitarianism in the above case

· It upholds the integrity of the case meaning that the decision will be based on the evidence available

· It keeps the statements made by the jury to be confidential within the members of the jury

· Ensures the jury remains uninfluenced by any person in an attempt to influence the decisions reached

· It also upholds the safety of the case

· The jury will remain to be impartial and independent

· It minimizes the danger facing the jury handling the case

· It enables flexibility in the legal system

· It slows down the tension which could be building up during the hearing and determination of the case