In May 1787, delegates from eleven states gathered at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia with the goal of establishing a government that would prevent tyranny. Tyranny refers to the abuse of power by a supreme ruler or small group, which can lead to the downfall of an entire nation and deny the rights of others. The Framers of the Constitution aimed to replace the weak Articles of Confederation with a stronger constitution to avoid this outcome. The new constitution sought to unite the country while also placing limitations on certain groups’ authority. To safeguard against tyranny, four methods were incorporated into the Constitution: equal representation for states in Congress, Federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances.
During the creation of the Constitution, the framers faced a challenge in preventing tyranny by maintaining a fair distribution of power in Congress between large and small states. The larger states supported assigning representatives based on population, while smaller states were concerned about limited representation under this system. In response, smaller states developed a plan for equal representation for all states. Ultimately, a compromise was reached where the number of representatives in the House of Representatives is determined by each state’s population favoring larger states while ensuring that every state has at least one representative and no more than one representative per every thirty thousand people. In contrast to the House of Representatives, each state is represented by two senators in the Senate regardless of their population size. These senators hold equal voting power and serve for a term of six years, benefiting smaller states by giving them an equal voice in decision-making.In summary, this system guarantees a fair distribution of power among states in Congress while also preventing the rise of tyranny by ensuring that neither larger nor smaller states gain excessive influence.
James Madison, who is also known as the “Father of the Constitution,” created Federalism in order to safeguard against tyranny. Federalism divides power between the federal government and state governments, offering a system of “double security” for protecting individuals’ rights and maintaining a separation of powers at both levels. Each government entity acts as a check on the other while still retaining self-control. The central government primarily focuses on national and global matters such as trade regulation, foreign relations, and defense forces. State governments handle local concerns such as establishing local governments, conducting elections, operating schools, implementing marriage and divorce laws, and overseeing in-state business activities. Both levels possess significant powers including taxation, borrowing money, establishing courts, and creating/enforcing laws. By preventing an excessive concentration of power at either level, Federalism serves as a safeguard against tyranny.
The Constitution’s framers had a purpose of preventing tyranny by dividing government powers, which was also a belief shared by Madison. Madison believed that if one entity held all the powers – legislative, executive, and judicial – it would be seen as tyrannical. Therefore, the framers established three separate branches of government. The first branch was Congress, which included the Senate and House of Representatives. Congress had responsibilities such as creating laws, printing money, declaring war, dealing with pirates, and collecting taxes. The second branch was the executive branch consisting of the President, Vice President, and cabinet members who were responsible for enforcing laws and negotiating treaties with other countries. Lastly, they created a judicial branch composed of both superior and inferior courts. This branch had the authority to interpret laws, declare them unconstitutional, and impose penalties for non-compliance. To prevent an accumulation of power that could lead to tyranny (Document B), individuals were prohibited from holding positions in multiple branches at the same time.
James Madison’s idea was to prevent tyranny by granting each branch of government the power to check and balance the others. The framers ensured this through various methods. For example, the legislative branch exercises control over the executive and judicial branches by approving nominations for cabinet seats and Supreme Court Justices made by the President, overriding a President’s veto, and impeaching the President to remove them from office. Similarly, the executive branch can check and balance the legislative and judicial branches by vetoing Congressional legislation and nominating judges. Furthermore, the judicial branch has authority over both the legislative and executive branches as they can deem laws and presidential acts unconstitutional. These checks and balances among the branches also aid in maintaining separation of powers since each branch has different roles.
The efforts of the Framers to draft a new constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation proved to be highly successful. Their contributions greatly benefited our nation, enabling America to be the first country to effectively guard against tyranny. Through the implementation of the small state – large state compromise, federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances, they guaranteed that the United States of America would never succumb to the dangers of tyranny.
Liebeck V. Mcdonald’s. Restaurants
1. Describe the company and the product safety issue that led to the lawsuit The name of this case in this report is the Liebeck v. McDonald’s. Restaurants and the court in which the lawsuit was filed was The Second Judicial District Court in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. The lawsuit was filed with the original complaint was filed on March 21, 1993, and the plaintiff only sued P. T. S. , Inc. , a New Mexico corporation and the local franchise operator.
“McDonald’s coffee spill” tort case became a widely known court case in the United States and internationally. When this case appeared on the news it was it brought a lot of attention and made a mockery of by radio talk-show hosts, television and newspaper editors around the world and throughout the United States in a case where a 79 year old women spilling hot McDonald’s coffee on herself while in a car as a result of it is she than sued McDonald’s receiving a cool 2. 9 million dollars from a jury that showed sympathy in the situation.
The first McDonald’s restaurant opened in San Bernardino, California by Richard and Maurice McDonald in 1948 and since then McDonald has become the world’s leading food service organization generating more than $40 billion in system wide sale and operating over thirty thousand restaurants in more than one hundred countries on six continents. The Liebeck case became a story widely known to considerate number of law suits that were meaningless, quarrelsome plaintiffs and juries that were out of control in the U S.
In fueling “tort reform “ it was used as a major weapon in the United States, and in foreign countries in opposing or favoring legal changes leading to or avoid, respectively, the excesses and dysfunction of the United States’ tort litigation system. In the decision of this case of the United States 1994 election campaigns “tort reform” there was a large platform in the Republican Party’s support and “Contract with America. ” Advocates in this case regularly and constantly discussed tort reform during and after campaigns, as landslides in the elections gathered Republicans control, the U.
S. Congress and state legislatures, tort reform became one of the major items in legislative program. A magazine called Newsweek labeled Stella Liebeck’s situation as the “poster lady” that was unwilling for the tort reform movement and in Washington, D. C. , where local media was filled with political advertisements referring to the McDonald’s coffee-spill horror-story finally pushed through a federal product liability law giving
one hundred percent in efforts in the United States where Liebeck case was used as a valuable source in efforts of state-law tort-reforms. In this case Mrs. Liebeck wasn’t driving the car the time the coffee spilled on her. The coffee was between her knees at the time and was taking the top off to pour cream and sugar into it, and while at a stop in the parking lot in the front passenger seat while removing the lid, the whole cup of coffee spilled onto Mrs Liebeck’s sweatpants were it absorbed through her pants held next to her skin.
The coffee purchase resulted in severe excruciatingly pain and suffering of third-degree burns to over 6 percent of her body to her groin, thighs and buttocks , multiple surgical skin grafts, a seven days at the hospital stay and medical bills totaling $200,000. Ms Lieback had never filed a lawsuit and didn’t have any intentions but McDonald’s refused to help her pay any of her medical bills after just asking for $20,000 to pay some of her bills. All McDonald’s wanted to offer was no more than a merely $800 so of course this case went to trial. 2.
Discuss the legal theories used by the plaintiff to recover in this lawsuit, how the lawsuit was resolved, and why you agree with the decision in the case During the trial the jury made a decision in Mrs. Liebeck being partially responsible and as a result compensation was reduced for her injuries. Having over 700 reports throughout the country there was coffee burn claims filed against McDonalds before Mrs Liebeck initial claim they were more than aware that their coffee was burning people and settled out for over $500,000 of burn injuries prior to this case.
The tactics in this case blamed Mrs. Liebeck for her injuries, claiming knowledge of not being as quick enough in taking off her pants after the coffee had spilled. There were also arguments in questioning with Mrs. Liebeck’s age playing a role in this incident in causing her injuries to be worse than a younger person since older people’s skin is thinner. There was talk in reference in this case as being intentional when this coffee was heated up to 190 F and having knowledge of rules in regulation in accordance to other restaurants heating coffee to temperatures of 160 F that is safe.
It was said that the coffee was so boiling hot that it had potential risk of burning off skin resulting in damages to bones and muscles in a matter of a blink of an eye. As the case proceeded it was noted that the quality assurance manager of McDonald’s was forced admitting that the Corporation was well aware of risks in serving coffee that was not safe, but ignored finding alternatives of actually preventing this from happening.
There was questioning in the fact of why McDonald’s coffee was made so hot and if it poses danger in customers being burned what type of decision could have been made in temperature reduction of this product. The answered to this question was answered as the trial unfolded. The requirements of McDonalds co? ee is made at temperatures that are scalding hot and these choices were made by consultants who specialized in coffee products and groups in these industries allegations of how it important for temperatures to be hot in order to get the full effect of extracting actual ?
avor of the coffee beans while the coffee brews. In a six day deliberation of a jury of women and men they came to a conclusion determining this product being very dangerous, and sold breach of the implied warranty of fitness imposed by the Uniform Commercial Code and was unfit for consumption and that McDonald’s coffee caused enough chaos that no one should suffer pain from exposure from the selling of extremely hot coffee at McDonald’s or other restaurants.
After careful deliberation McDonald was found by the jury in the engagement of conduct that was careless, resentful and driven. The jurors agreed on an award of 2. 7 million dollars in punitive damage against McDonald’s in comparence to two days of 1. 3 million dollars generated daily from coffee in revenue and 1 billion cups of coffee being sold each year. A day after the verdict a local reporter took it upon his self in going to the establishment where Mrs.
Liebeck was served and tested some coffee and founding it to be a 158 degrees in which I would be pretty sure to be in between of which would be the optimum temp in avoiding another law suit from hot coffee. It was a proven fact that they knew that the temperatures of the coffee was served hot but research from marketing showed customers of McDonalds coffee wanted not only hot but steaming hot coffee and had expectations of it being that way.
This than signaled doubt within companywide changes according to officials due to a last year series of focus groups of customers who buys coffee weekly from McDonald’s saying that coffee in the morning requirements isn’t so much of taste but to be hot but not to a point where its steaming Describe the changes that have taken place in the company to ensure greater safety of this product or its products After the aftermath of the Liebeck lawsuit McDonalds has taken some measures in ensuring safety of their products with Many McDonald’s drive-thrus posting warning signs of
hot chocolate, co? ee, and tea stating that its “very hot” Also McDonald’s lids having hot beverage cups engraved with words saying hot, hot, hot It was still controversial in conclusion to the case of McDonald’s coffee being served co? ee cooler than the coffee that harmed Ms. Liebeck. Specialist have indicated the policy current to serving hot co? ee should be 175-195 degrees Fahrenheit and that guidelines have continued to call for the best-tasting co? ee to be near boiling temperatures.
Lawsuits to the current reaction to co? ee showed performances in practicing improvement in job warnings but also maintaining temperatures for purposes of quality tasting and cooked foods served while hot. The company or restaurant should serve foods in heavy containers to avoid possible harm to the customer and of course themselves and alerting of any products have been taken out of the oven. Discuss which regulatory agency oversees the particular industry the company is in. The U.
S FDA is an agency that oversees all companies that processes, pack, and manufactures stores food, a dietary supplements beverage that is consumed in the United States. The U. S. FDA Food Safety Services and the FDA Food Safety Modernization enacted in 2011 required the FDA to undertake new missions in preventing outbreaks of foodborne illness before occurring and originating in food facilities outside the United States. There are more than 3,000 states, agencies locally and tribal having responsibilities in regulating food services and food retail industries in the US.
Their responsibilities include inspections and oversights of more than one million food establishments like restaurants, grocery stores, vending machines, cafeterias, and other outlets in health-care facilities. The Food and Drug Administration aims in promoting safety principles that are science-based food applications of retail and foods service settings in minimizing foodborne illness occurrences. Food safety management systems take multiple forms in establishing sets and patterns of procedures that can described as “the way we do things.
” Some organizations have put in place food safety management systems in controlling food preparation methods and monitoring processes to their operation. Regulating food safety integrated into any operation have impacts on business actions in taking in and opening up in the morning, ensuring profits and managing cash flows. By putting in place active systems that are ongoing having the outcome of actions for purposes of creating outcomes you desire and also achieve goals of improving food safety.
FDA supports food safety management systems in retail and food service establishments and with integrating proper sanitation, an employee training program that’s effective and prerequisite programs, HACCP provides an adequate food safety management system for any establishment. Make recommendations to the company about avoiding future lawsuits. McDonald’s has engaged in deceptive advertising, sales, and promotion produced food that was unreasonably unsafe; and failed to warn consumers of the dangers of its products. It’s very easy to make a product or service more appealing than the normal with false advertising.
This type of marketing practice is very common in American society even though this type of advertising is not approving by the population majority. False advertising is dangerous to our current economy to people where money is not to be disposed or thrown away unnecessarily. Having power to convict the FTC in essence to stop false advertising their biggest issue presented is the amount of false advertising that is happening. Avoid producing food that’s unsafe with having a safe food supply despite the fact that at any point in time contamination can occur in food.
In processing foodservices it starts in the fields and straight to people’s plate foodborne illnesses is caused from eating contaminated food or consuming contaminated drinks. It is estimated that each year in the U. S that there are 76 million food poisoning and statistics showing 400 to 500 foodborne illness have occurred yearly. Many in the industry are already taking responsibility. Establishments now are becoming conscious based upon overseeing, regulating, and establishing policies and custom forms to business operators and employees in taking cautions in avoiding foodborne illnesses and organizational food safety promotions
Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing
Tom Conover’s novel offers a compelling depiction of the demanding and unsettling existence of a prison guard at Sing Sing Penitentiary in New York State. This experience is not likely to be pursued by individuals who lack the commitment to upholding order within the prison system. The main character, a journalist, willingly plunges into the enigmatic realm of those who choose to spend a considerable part of their lives confined by prison walls.
In the book “Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing,” Conover provides a notable account that captures personal emotions while also highlighting the cultural understanding of a genuine prison guard. This work stands out in our exploration of incarceration, as it presents the prison guard as more than just a violent and hostile individual. Instead, it portrays them as a complex figure with a challenging and conflicting role.
Conover’s masterpiece delves into the perception that prison guards must strike a delicate balance between assertive authority and consent to involvement in a society dominated by prisoners. Conover himself worked as a “newjack” – a term used by inmates to refer to new correctional officers in New York state – for a year. After completing his training at the academy, he was assigned to Sing Sing, the state’s high-security prison in Ossining, where most rookie officers begin their careers.
The book “Newjack” recounts Conover’s introduction to the world of correctional work. Following a brief period of training at the academy and on-the-job experience, Conover was assigned to galleries where he would often be by himself and without any weapons. These galleries held sixty or more inmates, consisting of scared young first-timers, drug addicts, gang members, violent predators, and physically incapacitated prisoners afflicted with diseases such as AIDS and TB. As a newjack, Conover was entrusted with the responsibility of caring for and supervising these individuals.
Conover spent his time at Sing Sing prison closely interacting with inmates. He was often in the presence of prisoners, dining with them, visiting housing galleries, conducting strip searches, searching cells, writing disciplinary reports for infractions, and confiscating contraband. Additionally, Conover dedicated a significant portion of his time to assisting inmates who sought help with various personal problems, as they lived in a state of enforced powerlessness.
Conover’s description of the role of a correctional officer aligns with the perspectives of other individuals who have direct experience in prison. Most authentic interpretations of correctional work acknowledge a disconnect between the training provided and the actual nature of the job. Official policies and procedures often demand regular avoidance, there is often a strained relationship between line officers and administrators, and the stress inherent in the profession can undermine both professional behavior and personal life.
Conover also discusses the various aspects that a new officer experiences during their initial days in a crowded housing unit. He highlights the confusion and overwhelming feeling that accompanies this experience, as well as the reliance of new officers on the assistance of prisoners. Additionally, Conover portrays the clear lack of friendliness and indifference displayed by higher-ranking coworkers. Moreover, he emphasizes the inevitability of making significant mistakes, which can potentially endanger lives, within the tumultuous environment of the prison.
Conover sheds light on the portrayal of correctional officers as ruthless guards and reveals them as individuals, allowing readers to gain a better understanding of how their professional lives in prison affect their personal relationships. Additionally, Conover laments society’s failure to recognize that those choosing to work in these positions face high rates of divorce, heart disease, drug and alcohol addiction, and have shorter life spans compared to other state civil servants, all due to the stress in their lives.
According to page 20, prison guards faced fear of injuries from inmates as well as the risk of contracting AIDS and tuberculosis while on duty. These circumstances have played a role in shaping the negative characteristics typically associated with prison guards. The presence of violence, unconstructiveness, and the existence of threatening or wretched individuals all contribute to the aggression and brutality that is often anticipated from prison guards.
However, the Conover text adds nuance to the thesis by illustrating how the journalist’s mindset sets his work apart from other studies on prison based on penal theory. According to Conover, the ideal correctional officer is one who knows how to navigate the complexities of prison and maintain order without resorting to force. Conover’s sharp and unapologetic portrayal of his fellow officers and their arrogance demonstrates that Newjack is not a simple task. The use of language by frustrated officers and their actions further highlight this fact.
Some readers may interpret fictional stories about inmate manipulation as evidence of sadism and a lack of compassion in American institutions. In these stories, inmates are depicted as the “lowest of the low,” while correctional officers refer to themselves as “warehousers” and “baby-sitters.” One officer even expresses a refusal to assist inmates, regardless of immediate danger. Furthermore, officers nostalgically recall and idealize past times when they were able to physically harm disrespectful and uncooperative inmates in up-state prisons.
In general, this unbiased effort surely angers some officers who regret ever encountering Conover. However, it is clear that the writer has great admiration for correctional officers. Conover goes as far as disregarding many minor inmate rule violations and even breaks prison guidelines by providing inmates with contraband cigarettes and literature during the Christmas holidays.
Conover believes that correctional workers are complex individuals who are neither inherently good nor bad. Their attempts to perform effectively in challenging circumstances demonstrate their deep concern for those they punish. Conover illustrates this point with a quote from Amos Squire, a New York prison doctor who supervised 138 executions, including some in Sing Sing’s electric chair.
Conover’s book, Newjack, highlights the fact that success for correctional officers often involves managing the contradictions between genuine compassion and reasonable frustration, rather than overcoming the extreme cruelty portrayed in popular movies like “Brubaker” or “Shawshank Redemption.” Conover deserves recognition for his skillful examination of the challenges that arise from these inconsistencies. However, his portrayal of prison sexuality is likely to generate criticism despite his overall attempt to provide an accurate depiction of the correctional officer.
His claim that non-consensual sex is rare in Sing Sing seems to be false. It raises concerns about the officers’ effectiveness and suggests a lack of accountability for protecting vulnerable inmates. The existence of a long-standing prisoner code that discourages reporting abuse makes it difficult to determine the extent of rape within the prison. However, Conover’s examination of disciplinary infractions and openly transgender inmates suggests the presence of homosexual relationships.
Evidently, the author observed that the atmosphere at Sing Sing remained ordinary during the mentioned period. Upon reflecting on the significant differences in power and influence between young, vulnerable, and unconnected prisoners versus older, stronger, and gang-affiliated convicts, it becomes challenging to determine if any actions performed for approval within the prison are truly voluntary and not coerced. Additionally, some readers may find disturbing the author’s claim that consensual sexual encounters between female officers and inmates at Sing Sing may occur more frequently than incidents of prison rape.
Despite the possibility of male staff engaging in sexual misconduct on duty, including a situation where Conover himself was approached as a guard, it is challenging to fully explore this subject. While some readers may criticize him for not delving deeper into this issue, others will find themselves still eager to learn more about a topic they never wanted to comprehend. Correctional officers hold a crucial role in ensuring that court sentences become a reality.
Despite our tendency to overlook popular stereotypes, Conover’s book “Newjack” challenges us to do exactly that. This presents a valuable opportunity for deep reflection. (References: Clear, T., Cole, G., & Reisig, M. (2011). “American corrections” (10th ed.). Belmont, CA USA: Wadsworth. Conover, T. (2000). “Newjack: Guarding sing sing” (1st ed.). New York: Vintage Books.)