Snow shoveling always has been a means for young people to learn how to run a business. They learn how to advertise, interact with customers, work for a competitive wage, and learn something about service to the community. All businesses are at the service of others; and, snow shoveling, like delivering newspapers, or running a lemonade stand, give young people a way of learning responsibility.

Governor Christie just signed into law (before a major snowstorm) making it legal for residents to offer snow shoveling services without first applying for a permit. Last year, Bound Brook, New Jersey police stopped two entrepreneurial teens for going door-to-door and offering to shovel snow for a small fee. The police told the boys they were not allowed to solicit businesses without a permit. In Bound Brook, the license costs $450. The case made national headlines.

Republican State Sen. Mike Doherty sponsored the “‘right-to-shovel’” bill, stating it “was incredible that some towns wanted teens to pay expensive licensing fees just to clear snow off driveways.”

“The bill removes only licensing requirements for snow shoveling services, and only applies to solicitations made within 24 hours before a predicted snow storm. Towns with laws prohibiting door-to-door solicitation will be able to enforce those laws in all other circumstances.”

Posted by Daniel Lamas.

In October 2013, Shaneen Allen was arrested for carrying a registered gun across the New Jersey border. Allen, who is a Pennsylvania native, was going on a routine visit to New Jersey when she was pulled over. As she opened her glove compartment, the officer noticed the concealed weapon. Allen was questioned and arrested.

Allen’s punishment could have included up to three years in prison, but thankfully her attorney got her out of serious jail time. Allen was in hot water for almost two years. Recently, Governor Chris Christie issued a pardon to Allen and was praised by many gun rights groups. As an American, I feel that the Second Amendment is very important, not only to people as individuals, but mainly to show what this country was built upon.

Personally, I do not feel that Allen did anything wrong as she was a legal, registered carrier and had no bad intentions. Governor Christie did the right thing and helped defend a very important amendment that supports what our Founding Fathers would have wanted. Not many people would have been quick to pardon somebody in Allen’s situation, but luckily for her, Governor Christie had her back. People like Allen who are legal carriers are what keeps the country the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be. If more gun owners were registered like Allen, crime would be monitored easier and street violence would come to an ease.

Daniel is a business management and merchandising major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Nora Shelbi.

In the article, Isaac (2017), discussed the issue of the Uber investor and claimed that Travis got involved in the material misstatement and fraudulent trading.  As per the investors, it has been declared that such fraudulent activity has been done with the intention to get the outside control of the board; and, he is involved in the breach of contract and breach of duty. Also, the investors are claiming that Mr. Kalanick’s “overarching objective is to pack Uber’s board with loyal allies in an effort to insulate his prior conduct from scrutiny and clear the path for his eventual return as C.E.O.”

The author of the article has declared that all the fraudulent activities which have been done by Mr. Kalanick is mainly due to restoring his position as the CEO and for this purpose, he is using the fraudulent ways which are not allowed at all in the corporate environment. The persons who were in favor of him have declared that he does not want to be the chief executive officer of the company, but others have said that he is doing this just to achieve the control without even having the title of the chief executive officer of the company.

There are many other claims, which are made, including an atmosphere of sexual harassment at workplace. The company is also sued by the sister company of Google for stealing the trade secrets of company, Waymo. Such issues concerning litigation against the company as well as its officials are not in favor of the company. It is deteriorating the image of the company, as well as, dissatisfying the investors to a greater extent. (ISAAC, 2017)

Nora is a graduate accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

ISAAC, M. (2017, Aug 10). Uber Investor Sues Travis Kalanick for Fraud. Retrieved Sep 20, 2017, from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/technology/travis-kalanick-uber-lawsuit-benchmark-capital.html

Posted by Melissa Nomani.

Lawsuits filed against Lumber Liquidators claim that homeowners who put certain laminate flooring into their home are being exposed to high levels of formaldehyde. This puts them at risk and also lowers the value of their property. As of this July, the number of lawsuits filed against the company has gone up from only a mere ten in June. Many lawsuits began being filed after a 60 Minutes episode that aired on March 1, 2015, exposing the high levels of formaldehyde in laminated flooring made in China. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and has been linked to cancer and respiratory problems. A study done by 60 Minutes showed that 30 out of 31 of the tested flooring samples (all of the sample were Lumber Liquidators products).

According to a study conducted by 60 Minutes, 30 of 31 flooring samples from Lumber Liquidators did not meet formaldehyde emissions standards. It is estimated that thousands of people have Lumber Liquidators flooring in their homes. Some lawsuits claim that homeowners have suffered from respiratory problems after installing the laminate flooring.

Another issue that has risen is that Lumber Liquidators is being accused of false advertising and selling products comprised of particles that come from endangered habitats and trees. The US Department of Justice is investigating the company for their alleged use of wood. The wood was illegally cut down from Russia–this directly violates the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act does not allow for the importation of products made from woods that are illegally logged.

Furthermore, this past May, Lumber Liquidators CEO, Robert Lynch, resigned. During this month the company also announced that it would be suspending the sale of flooring from China. The company offered homeowners free  indoor air quality screening, if they had purchased laminate flooring from China.

The number of lawsuits against Lumber Liquidators continues to grow.

Melissa is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Patrick Cleaver.

Every law is made to help the public, to protect the safety of the driver, and deliver a reliable car. The car industry knows they make mistakes and are responsible for fixing the damages for free when such mistakes occur and cars get recalled. However, does a used owner know that he/she is able to get his/her car fixed for free once it had been recalled? Most people do not know that a dealer will fix the car for free after it has been recalled, so the damages are never fixed. The car, marked as dangerous, is instead sold at auctions and then sold again without ever being properly taken care off. While this may end up with nobody getting hurt, doing leaves a huge risk at the buyer’s expense.

Delia Robles was one of the unfortunate people who had been taken advantage of by this system and it ended up costing her much more than she bargained for, getting killed by a defective airbag. Ms. Robles was driving a 2001 Honda Civic on her day off from work when she hit a pickup truck. An accident that would normally end with her walking away unscathed turned into her death bed. The car she was driving has been sold five times over a fourteen-year span and was most recently bought by her son who had no idea that the car was not safe. The information which had not been released to him is that the car was never fixed after it had been recalled for problems with its airbags.

The car was equipped with Takata airbags which “have been linked to 15 deaths.” The airbags were not safe due to being made out of product that wore out over time. That meant that the airbag was a time bomb waiting to explode and Ms. Robles is the one who triggered it. When hitting the truck the Honda had released its airbags which burst and sent metal pieces flying at and killing Ms. Robles.

The issue at hand is that there are no safeguards which prevent deaths like these from occurring. The previous owner is not reliable for not fixing the car like a dealership would be had this happened to a new car. That owner is also not responsible for informing the new owner of the risks they are taking by buying the car. The auction simply sells the car “as is” and does not say whether or not the car is safe to buy.

While there are no federal laws protecting the consumer of accidents in used cars, there are state laws which are implemented in order to keep people safe. According to the New York State law, a seller is not allowed to conceal a material defect because that is a fraudulent action. Also, the New York State auctions are not allowed to sell vehicles “as is” unless they are government agencies. This is a step forward towards the right (safe) way, but does not fix the problem because the Department of Finance takes advantage of it. This department still allows clear negligence by huge companies which can lead to more incidents like the one Ms. Robles experienced. CarMax is a great example of this problem. “CarMax, one of the country’s largest used-car dealers, advertise that their vehicles pass rigorous safety tests – even if the cars have unrepaired problems for which recalls have been issued.” These companies are basically misleading the customers, making people believe that their cars are safe when in reality they could be death traps.

No malice can be proven in the case of Ms. Robles since it has had so many past owners and neither her son, nor the owner before him were aware of the recall on the Honda. Unfortunately, Ms. Robles was a victim of a broken system and now the 50 year old will never get to see her three grandchildren grow up.

Patrick is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Research proposal posted by Elizabeth Donald.

Part One: Topic Explanation

Liberty of contract was originally introduced into U.S. constitutional jurisprudence through the case of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). In this case, Joseph F. Lochner challenged a provision of the New York Bakeshop Act of 1895 that prohibited bakers from working more than ten hours per day and 60 hours per week. The Supreme Court held that this regulation failed to pass constitutional muster in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the Court found “liberty of contract,” that is, the freedom of individuals and groups to enter into contracts, to be a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Other Supreme Court decisions continued to build on this idea during what is now referred to as “The Lochner Era” of cases. This includes Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), invalidating a minimum wage law and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 286 U.S. 510 (1925), deeming unconstitutional a regulation that led to the closing of many private Catholic schools.

Part Two: Pros and Cons

The Lochner decision was considered one of the most controversial cases of its time after being handed down in 1905. Progressive jurists, politicians, and scholars alike denounced Lochner, whether for attempting to constitutionalize laissez-faire economics or for exceeding judicial authority.[1] They believed that the conservative-leaning Lochner majority reached far beyond the scope of its powers. This is because although the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly list “liberty of contract” as a fundamental right, the court still found it to be so under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause which states, “[N]or shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XVI, § 1. In finding a liberty of contract within the Constitution, Progressives saw the majority as an advocate of big business that attempted to adopt policy by means of judicial decision. These Progressive jurists instead encouraged a deference to the legislature on all matters, economic and personal. Since the early 20^th century, Progressive ideology has shifted, but still views liberty of contract in a negative light.

Flashing forward to today, jurists across the political spectrum remain highly critical of Lochner. Constitutional theorist Bruce Ackerman places Lochner in his “anticanon” of cases. Unlike early 20^th century Progressives, today’s Progressive jurists typically believe in using strict scrutiny to analyze laws regarding personal rights. Yet, they now isolate personal liberties from economic liberties, which are still considered unwarranting of constitutional protection.[2] Twenty-first century conservatives, likewise, do not tend to favor liberty of contract. Conservative jurists today often advocate for a deference to the legislature on both personal and economic issues. Thus, the conservative viewpoint has also significantly shifted from the Lochner Era right-wing belief that natural rights precede positive law and that liberty of contract is one of those inherent natural rights. This leaves little room for hope for the few present-day proponents of liberty of contract. However, the idea of contractual freedom as a fundamental right might not be as bad as many make it seem. In fact, liberty of contract is really a derivative of the natural law.

The natural law, according to St. Pope John Paul II, is a law that resides within the “depths of the conscience.” It is written on the hearts of all men, according to which God will be the judge. Legal theorists have found certain rights to be inherent within this natural law. The Constitution itself was founded on the idea of natural rights. James Madison, a drafter of the Constitution, believed that man “embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage…”[3] This idea was the bedrock of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which was eventually applied to the states through the Fourteenth. Therefore, the Court majority in Lochner simply viewed liberty of contract as one of these natural rights under due process. This reading of the Due Process Clause achieves much greater validation than suggested by Lochner’s opponents. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30, which gave way to the Fourteenth Amendment, listed liberty of contract first in the rights accorded to man. In this act, the 39^th Congress wrote that, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties …” This act served the purpose of enforcing the natural rights of man. Therefore, the Lochner majority’s belief in liberty of contract as a fundamental right was not unwarranted.

Part Three: Questions of Ethics

Liberty of contract is intertwined with ethics because the very idea of ethics rests on the natural law. St. Thomas Aquinas said that the natural law “constitutes the principles of practical rationality,” which are the rules by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable.[4] It is from this ethical theory that fundamental rights were developed. Not only that, but contractual freedom is essential to business ethics as well. The significance of liberty of contract comes through in the employment-at-will rule which gives employers unfettered power to “dismiss their employees at will for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of a legal wrong.” However, because the employment-at-will theory is supported by laissez-faire economics, it too is often criticized by Progressive jurists who oppose free markets. Yet, even though early 20^th century Progressive jurists denounced the Lochner decision for its association with laissez-faire ideals, this does not invalidate the fact that liberty of contract can be viewed as a fundamental right within the natural law. Further, just because liberty of contract is an economic liberty does not mean it cannot be a fundamental liberty. Since provisions of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 demonstrate that both the Founding Fathers and the 39^th Congress understood liberty of contract as deriving from the natural law, it is valid to not only consider this liberty as fundamental, but also ethical.

Works cited:

[1] David E. Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner (2012).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Colleen Sheehan, James Madison and Our First Duty, THE CENTER FOR VISION AND VALUES (Sep. 23, 2014), http://www.visionandvalues.org/2014/09/james-madison-and-our-first-duty-by-dr-colleen-sheehan/.

[4] Aquinas, ST I-II. Q94.

Under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the Congress has the power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[.]”  The Founders wisely thought that the Legislature is in a better position than the President to carry out the will of the people.  Congressional debate can test the arguments for and against intervention in global problems.  Every two years members of the House are kept in check by the voters, who ought to dictate what American foreign policy should be.

James Madison, commonly referred to as “Father of the Constitution,” once said:

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.  War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.  In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people.  The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both.  No nation could reserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Under the War Powers Resolution, the President can deploy U.S. forces anywhere outside the U.S. for 180 days, provided Congress is informed in writing within 48 hours.  The executive does not need Congress to declare war for the 180 days, however, that time period cannot be extended without congressional authorization.  The President has the authority to introduce American forces into hostilities only when there is:

(1) a declaration of war

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The Supreme Court has never reviewed the War Powers Resolution to see if it passes constitutional muster.  Although Congress will say that it has “the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer . . . [,]” the Court, however, has ruled in other cases that one branch of government cannot give power away to another.

Posted by Chase Mulligan.

On October 21, 2016 a coordinated distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) was made on internet systems operated by Domain Name Systems (DNS) provider Dyn resulting in massive disruption of internet services across the United States and Europe. Internet services along most of the east coast, west coast, and southern parts of the country were affected. The cyber-attack has been called an “historic attack”; (flashcritic.com) the first robot-based digital assault using the Internet of Things that linked millions of on-line devices in a coordinated operation. This tactic uses a novel approach of manipulating electronic devices connected to the Internet of Things for the attack capitalizing on the weak security of these devices and raising the question of responsibility and liability.

Anonymous and New World Hackers using recently released malicious software (malware) called Mirai, created a robot network for the attack. The significant aspect of the attack is the use of the Mirai botnet code to take control of devices that are used on what is called the Internet of Things. These devices are electronic devices not directly connect to computers but are connected through the internet and include such items as webcams, smart TV’s, routers, security cameras, DVRs, and similar devices. By using these electronic devices the hackers were able to take control of a virtual army of attackers. While the multiple attack across multiple directions is considered sophisticated, the actual use of the electronic devices is considered uncomplicated. Many of the compromised electronic devices are used by homes or small business and often lack security capabilities or contain elementary security that is easily compromised. The hackers had little difficulty installing the Mirai malware and taking control of the devices when needed for the attack.

Security organizations are taking measures to identify the comprised devises and developing ways to combat the Mirai command and control system. However, the cost and potential liability for placing unsecured or poorly security protected electronic devices on the Internet of Things is a looming question. If someone or a company experiences a significant loss of money, compromise of data, or destruction of assets; who is liable? Surely the hackers, but are the companies that market poorly or non-secure smart electronic devices; is the person or concern that uses the devices responsible, jointly or wholly? An area of Cyber-law is now in the making.

 Chase is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Chase Mulligan. 

On October 21, 2016 a coordinated distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) was made on internet systems operated by Domain Name Systems (DNS) provider Dyn resulting in massive disruption of internet services across the United States and Europe. Internet services along most of the east coast, west coast, and southern parts of the country were affected. The cyber-attack has been called an “historic attack”; (flashcritic.com) the first robot-based digital assault using the Internet of Things that linked millions of on-line devices in a coordinated operation. This tactic uses a novel approach of manipulating electronic devices connected to the Internet of Things for the attack capitalizing on the weak security of these devices and raising the question of responsibility and liability.

Anonymous and New World Hackers using recently released malicious software (malware) called Mirai, created a robot network for the attack. The significant aspect of the attack is the use of the Mirai botnet code to take control of devices that are used on what is called the Internet of Things. These devices are electronic devices not directly connect to computers but are connected through the internet and include such items as webcams, smart TV’s, routers, security cameras, DVRs, and similar devices. By using these electronic devices the hackers were able to take control of a virtual army of attackers. While the multiple attack across multiple directions is considered sophisticated, the actual use of the electronic devices is considered uncomplicated. Many of the compromised electronic devices are used by homes or small business and often lack security capabilities or contain elementary security that is easily compromised. The hackers had little difficulty installing the Mirai malware and taking control of the devices when needed for the attack.

Security organizations are taking measures to identify the comprised devises and developing ways to combat the Mirai command and control system. However, the cost and potential liability for placing unsecured or poorly security protected electronic devices on the Internet of Things is a looming question. If someone or a company experiences a significant loss of money, compromise of data, or destruction of assets; who is liable? Surely the hackers, but are the companies that market poorly or non-secure smart electronic devices; is the person or concern that uses the devices responsible, jointly or wholly? An area of Cyber-law is now in the making.

Chase is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Abigail Anaemeje. 

Yet, another automobile scandal! In September, the Environmental Protection Agency found that Volkswagen sold 482,000 cars in the U.S. that contained a “defeat device.” This type of software was used in diesel engines, “that could detect when they were being tested, changing the performance accordingly to improve results.” The result of this led to the “engines emitting nitrogen oxide pollutants 40 times above what is allowed in the US.” In addition, in November of this year, Volkswagen also found irregularities of carbon dioxide emissions levels in about 800,000 cars in Europe. In response to the emission-cheating scandal, Volkswagen has acknowledge their failure. As a result, they will have to pay a fine to the EPA of $37,500 for every vehicle that goes against the allowed standards.

This issue has not only effected the U.S. and Europe, but also France, South Korea, the UK, Italy, Canada, and Germany. In total, 500,000 cars in the U.S., 2.4 million in Germany, and 1.2 million cars in the U.K. have been recalled as a result of the emissions scandal. So far, no employees have been directly fired over the incident. However, the management board member and the head of sales and marketing, Christina Klingler is leaving the company on an unrelated issue.

Abigail is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Deena Khalil.

On Wednesday, November 6, 2014, there was a court hearing about big-time banks being sued for manipulating a financial benchmark, Libor, by “U.S. municipalities and financial funds who argue they suffered financial damages by receiving lower interest rates on transactions as a result of the suspected manipulation.” Libor is short for the London Interbank Offered Rate, and it’s used to set the rates on things worth trillions of dollars such as loans, credit cards, and some complex derivatives. The benchmark is calculated each business day by averaging out interest rates in which banks estimate they could borrow from each other. But these banks have to be within the London trading operations in order to be part of the benchmark. Some of the banks that are being accused are JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America.

Plaintiffs include U.S. municipalities and financial funds who argue they suffered financial damages by receiving lower interest rates on transactions as a result of the suspected manipulation. They allege that evidence gathered by investigators in the U.S., Europe and around the globe shows bank traders involved in the rate-setting process rigged the outcomes to boost their trading profits.

The banks accused are trying to get these cases to be dismissed There are U.S banks that have been struck with billions of dollars in penalties due to Libor manipulation. For example, JPMorgan was fined $78 million by European authorities! Some banks have settled cases, but defendant banks in the present case are seeking to dismiss due to “the lack of personal jurisdiction.” Attorneys “argued the recent Supreme Court rulings established that corporations are ‘at home’ only in their respective countries and in most cases are subject only to lawsuits filed there, not in U.S. courts.” They claim that the Libor manipulation activity occurred outside the U.S.

Deena is a business finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Los Angeles will pay 24 million dollars to two men who spent decades in prison for crimes they did not commit. In one case, lawyers and a team of students from Loyola Law School challenged a key witness’s testimony. In 1979, Kash Delano Register was charged with the armed robbery and murder of Jack Sasson, 78, after eyewitness testimony placed him at the scene at the time of the shooting. The witness told police she heard gunshots and she saw Register fleeing the scene. The witness selected Register out of a photo lineup, but her sisters told police that her story was untrue. No murder weapon was recovered and no fingerprints were found. Based solely on this witness’s testimony, a jury found Register guilty and he spent 34 years in prison.

The witness’s sister testified she tried to tell a detective that her sister had lied, but in response, the investigator allegedly put a finger to his lips indicating she should keep quiet about it. Her other sister told the police that she was lying, but even her pleas were ignored. Register’s attorneys claimed that the witness selected him under the threat of being prosecuted for credit card forgery and a recent theft if she failed to choose someone out of the lineup.

In the other case, Bruce Lisker was accused of murdering his mother. “At the time of the murder, Lisker, who had a reputation for fighting with his mother and a history of drug abuse, told police he saw her lying in the foyer and broke into the home to help her. They did not believe him.” During a hearing challenging the conviction, lawyers undermined or disproved key elements of the prosecution’s case, including that a bloody shoe print that could not have been made by Lisker’s shoes. His attorneys claimed “that the lead detective ignored evidence that Lisker’s friend may have been a possible suspect.”

In every arrest and criminal prosecution, someone’s liberty is at stake, and these cases illustrate the importance that prosecutors and police get it right. Money can always be replaced. But no one can ever get back all those years lost in prison, as a result of being falsely accused.

Posted by Arben Bajrami.

Sweatshops, or a workplace with unacceptable working conditions, have remained a problem up until recent years in business and in our economy.  Companies such as Nike and Adidas have workers in foreign countries sewing and producing equipment, apparel, and footwear for very little pay.  It is said that these sweatshop workers receive something called “living wage,” which is only five hundred dollars a month, or just enough money to survive.

Laborers that work in sweatshops are considered highly unethical.  Also, these items cost very little money to make but sell at outrageously high prices in retail stores.  For example, if it costs Nike four dollars and eighty cents to make a shirt, retail stores often mark up the product for eighteen dollars.

At least certain companies, such as Knights Apparel, are making a conscious effort to raise awareness to the horrors of sweatshops. Knights Apparel works closely with a program called Worker Rights Consortium.  They work “‘to combat sweatshops and protect the rights of workers who sew apparel and make other products sold in the United States.’”

Arben is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Research proposal posted by Jessica Page.

Topic

The principle of double effect creates a set of guidelines to “determine when it is ethically permissible for a human being to engage in conduct in pursuit of a good end with full knowledge that the conduct will also bring about bad results” (The Principle of Double Effect). Generally, the principle states that when someone is deciding a certain conduct that has both good and bad effects, the course of conduct they choose is “ethically permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the bad result” (The Principle of Double Effect). The moral criteria for the principle of double effect generally states the action in itself must be good or indifferent, the good effect cannot be obtained through the bad effect, there must be a proportion between the good and bad effects brought about, the intention of the subject must be directed towards the good effect and merely tolerate the bad effect and there does not exist another possibility or avenue (What is the Principle of Double Effect?).

Pros and Cons

The issue with the principle of double effect is that each situation where the principle applies is different. If an act is bad, it cannot become good or indifferent by a good motive or good circumstances. If it is evil in nature, this will not change. That being said, the principle “the end justifies the means” must always be rejected. The idea that needs to be applied to each issue is the fact that a human must never do evil, but they are not bound to prevent the existence of evil. One example we can apply this to is the BP oil spill that was discussed in class. By not mandating a cut-off switch because of how expensive it was, even though the safety benefits were astronomical, when an explosion happened on one of the rigs, eleven workers were killed and seventeen were injured. Not to mention the five million barrels of oil that gushed into the ocean. Had the US mandated these switches like they wanted, even though BP lobbied against them, it could have avoided the deaths, injuries and pollution caused by the exploding rig. In this case, the deaths and havoc caused by the explosion did not justify the fact that BP was trying to save money for their own personal benefit. Another example where the principle of double effect is relevant today is the controversy of euthanasia. It is used to justify the case “where a doctor gives drugs to a patient to relieve distressing symptoms even though he knows doing this may shorten the patient’s life” (BBC). The doctor’s intention is not to kill the patient, but the result of death is a side-effect of reducing patient’s pain. One problem that people argue against this doctrine is the fact that they believe we are responsible for all anticipated consequences of our actions. Another is the fact that intention is irrelevant. A third issue, specifically in the euthanasia issue, is the fact that death is not always seen as a bad thing making the double effect irrelevant. Lastly, the double effect can produce an unexpected moral result.

Ethics and Principles

When looking at the incorporation of Catholic, one of the main issues that concerns this principle and the Catholic religion is that case where a pregnancy may need to end in order to preserve the life of the mother. The example most often given is a woman with uterine cancer. By removing the uterus, it will bring death to the fetus but the death is not “directly” intended and in turn, the mother will live. It is an issue that still is debated today (Soloman). Another similar case having to do closely with Catholic ideals is when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and must receive surgery to remove the embryo. At a Catholic hospital, it can be questioned whether that specific procedure is considered a direct abortion, going against the Catholic ideals and morals, no matter what the means of the surgery are. “The principle of double effect enables bioethicists and Catholic moralists to navigate various actions that may or may not be morally justifiable in some circumstances” (Kockler). The idea of proportionate reasoning has also been condemned by Pope John Paul II. He categorized proportionalism as a species of consequentialism. This is condemned by the Church because no Catholic moralist would agree that a desirable end justifies any means (Kockler). These are serious issues, especially when considering the principle of double effect from a Catholic standpoint.

Works Cited:

Kockler, Nicolas. The Principle of Double Effect and Proportionate Reason. http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2007/05/pfor2-0705.html

“The Doctrine of Double Effect”. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/doubleeffect.shtml

“The Principle of Double Effect”. http://sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html

“The Principle of Double Effect”. http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208300/theories/double%20effect.html

“What is the Principle of Double Effect?” http://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=132

Posted by Bridget Uribe.

During the month of March of 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged three executives: Chairman Steven Davis, Executive Director Stephen DiCarmine, and Chief Financial Officer Joel Sanders of Dewey & LeBoeuf, the international law firm, with facilitating a $150 million fraudulent bond offerings. The SEC alleged that the three charged turned to accounting fraud when the firm needed money during the economic recession and steep costs from a recent merger.  They were afraid that their declining revenues might cause the bank lenders to cut off access to the firm’s credit lines. Thus, leading Dewey & LeBoeuf’s financial professionals came up with ways to artificially inflate income and distort financial performance.

The fraud didn’t stop there. Dewey & LeBoeuf then resorted to the bond markets to raise significant amounts of cash through a private offering that seized on fake financial numbers. Dewey & LeBoeuf since have officially went out of business, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office charged criminal charges against Davis, DiCarmine, and Sanders. According to the SEC’s complaint, the roots of the fraud dated back to late 2008 when senior financial officers began to come up with fake revenues by manipulating various entries in Dewey & LeBoeuf’s internal accounting system. The firm’s profitability was inflated by approximately $36 million (15%) at the end of the 2008 financial results. “The improper accounting also reversed millions of dollars of uncollectible disbursements, mischaracterized millions of dollars of credit card debt owed by the firm as bogus disbursements owed by clients, and inaccurately accounted for significant lease obligations held by the firm”(SEC Press Release).

Fast forward to the present, a New York judge declared a mistrial Monday bringing an end to the trial for the biggest law firm failure in U.S. history! The decision comes on the 22nd day of deliberations by a 12-member jury, which acquitted the ex-law firm leaders on several dozen counts of falsifying business records. The jury couldn’t reach a verdict on grand larceny and remained deadlocked on more than 90 counts charges facing Steven Davis, Joel Sanders, and Stephen DiCarmine. The three could have faced up to 25 years in prison if convicted of grand larceny, the most serious of the roughly 50 counts each brought against them. The defendants also faced related civil charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a private lawsuit brought by former Dewey investors who say, “They were duped into buying debt in a 2010 bond offering.” Both of those proceedings had been on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Some highlights of the trial are: prosecutors had likened Mr. Davis to a drug kingpin, overseeing a criminal enterprise. Also, the defense side thought prosecutors didn’t present enough evidence to prove their case, thus choosing not to call any witnesses. Instead, the lawyers relied on the cross-examination of government witnesses to try to distance their clients from the actions taking place in the accounting department. At times, such questioning also prompted praise for the defendants from those on the stand. Where does this lead us now? How the Department of Justice completely lost the case or can a retrial give a favorable outcome in the future? It’s too early to tell, but what I do know is that the long deliberations and mistrial will raise questions about whether the case was too complex.

Bridget is a graduate forensic accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.