Experience

16+ years teaching Taiwanese | FREE 30-minute trial classes available!

Bernard English

Bernard English
FREE 30-minute trial classes available!

Online English Tutor/Teacher

My photo
Native Speaker of American English Conversation practice. Chatting or in-depth discussion of news articles. TOEFL-IELTS practice / CV, SOP, journal paper, essay revision 英語家教 彈性排課, 免通勤, 托福, 職場英文, 履歷/論文修改…等。 請看我的學生推薦信。

Search This Blog

email: bernard.english@gmail.com

website: https://sites.google.com/site/taipeibm/
FREE 30-minute trial classes available!

Showing posts with label Case Studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Case Studies. Show all posts

Monday, July 7, 2008

Case Study #2, Loyalty & Betrayal FROM University of San Diego

Elia Kazan, now 87 years old, was one of the most important American film directors during the 1950’s and 1960’s, having directed classic films such as On the Waterfront and Viva Zapata, A Streetcar Named Desire, and East of Eden, which launched the careers of Marlon Brando and James Dean. This past year Mr. Kazan was rejected, as he has been now for many years, for lifetime achievement awards by both the American Film Institute and the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. The reason for this is that in 1952 Mr. Kazan appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) and informed on eight friends, all film writers and directors as having been, like Mr. Kazan, members of the American Communist Party in the 1930’s. Kr Kazan did not accuse the eight individuals of any specific actions injurious to the United States. Nonetheless, none of them were able to work in the film industry for many years, in some cases, ever again, as a result of Mr. Kazan’s testimony. Kr Kazan’s testimony took place at the height of the McCarthy era when the HUAC was zealously looking for evidence of Communist influence in Hollywood. Mr. Kazan was under pressure to testify, as were other former members of the American Communist Party in the film industry, because failure to cooperate with the HUAC had led to many writers and directors being blacklisted by film studios, which made it impossible to find work. Movie critics are deeply divided over the decision not to honor Mr. Kazan. Some believe that, in the words of one member of the American Film Institute, “All that matters is the movies. You’re honoring a person’s body of work.” Other critics disagree. “When you’re honoring someone’s entire career, says another critic, you’re honoring the totality of what he represents, and Kazan’s career, post 1952, was built on the ruin of other person’s careers.”

Should Mr. Kazan receive a lifetime achievement award? If so, why? If not, why not?

Case Study # 15, Retaliation FROM University of San Diego

In 1944 it became known to the Free French Partisan fighting forces that the Germans had executed 80 partisans and planned soon to execute more. The Partisans thus decided they would shoot 80 Germans prisoners who had recently surrendered to them. At this point the Red Cross intervened, won a postponement of the executions, and sought an agreement from the Germans to treat captured partisans as prisoners of war, who may not be shot. The Partisans waited 6 days and the Germans did not reply. The Partisans then shot 80 German prisoners. After these shootings the Nazis executed no more Partisans.

Was the shooting of the 80 German prisoners by the Partisans morally justifiable? If so, why? If not, why not?

Monday, June 30, 2008

Blackmail Case Study #11 FROM The University of San Diego

#11 Blackmail
In the summer of 1997 Ms. Autumn Jackson was convicted of attempting to blackmail Bill Cosby. At her trial the prosecution presented evidence that Ms. Jackson threatened to disclose to the press her claims of having been wronged by Mr. Cosby, who she believes is her father, unless he agreed to pay her tens of millions of dollars. In an opinion piece that appeared in the New York Times shortly after the trial, Michael P. Rips, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School, criticized the conviction of Ms. Jackson on the following grounds. According to Mr. Rips, Ms. Jackson's crime, blackmail, is defined in a way that consists of performing two acts together, which are not crimes if done separately. In this regard, Mr. Rips first noted that if Ms. Jackson had told her story to the press, without demanding any money from Mr. Cosby, she would not have done anything illegal. Second, Mr. Rips pointed out that if she had demanded the money from Mr. Cosby, but without making her threat to go to the press, then, again, she would not have broken the law. Mr. Rips concluded that it is both illogical and unfair to make the performing of these two acts together a crime, when performing each of them separately is legally permissible. Based on this line of reasoning, Mr. Rips believes that the crime of blackmail, as currently defined, should be removed from federal and state criminal statutes.

Should the crime of blackmail be removed from federal and state criminal statutes as Mr. Rips recommends? If so, why? If not, why not?
MY COMMENTS

By this logic, drinking while intoxicated should also be legal since driving and drinking are by themselves legal acts. I happen to agree that blackmail should be legal, but for other reasons.
  1. The specter of blackmail has the benefit of deterring people from committing unethical acts.
  2. Legalized blackmail allows for the punishment of unethical, though legal acts, which the legal system does not address.

Followers