An Effective Method to Counter Corporate Crime - Essay Example

Is naming and shaming businesses an affective method to counter "corporate crime" Shaming is the act that the weak mostly attend to in their conclusions of how to end and get to the right goal they are facing and wanting from their enemies depending on how much they could get for compensation in as big currency money as possible. This is unethical. The purpose of what this should be is how to get the rights back when nobody is listening since the truth is lost among the people who file the lawsuit and find no reason to get the purpose of their claims to the other end except by calling each other names and shaming each other's names especially when they are unable to get their rights back so they prefer playing strongly by playing tough and fighting back with bare fists by punching the name of the organization or the person in the face and gaining as much profit out of it 'as means of compensation for the kinds of terrible damages that others cause to them who are the ones who are shamed and disqualified to live rightfully among citizens of the one society'. This could be proper if the rights are truly theirs,but how do you know whether the rights of the claimer about the claimed to be abuser are proper if the evidences are not enough and the words of the person who is claiming the lawsuit have said that they are right with nothing to prove that they are mistakenhow would one act thenone way to do so is to find out the way they speak,another is the way they utter sentences and how they form them and a third is by remaining on the side of the defence until the defence shows signs of being understanding what the lawsuit is about and why he or she is being despised by those who make the lawsuit against them seem to be shameful due to the accusation of what people have been saying about them for the crisis they have been put inso what if the damages are physicalwhat is the counteract One way is to understand if the purpose of the cause is to fund money for personal greed or to find eminent basics for the person to live on for the rest of his life,by means of saying that they are harmed and could not move on in life due to the crucial decisions that they had to take to take action against those who have been making that injured alleged person angry. Could it be that the person who is hurt and is allegedly asking for compensation trying to fail an accusation against himself of being unable to gain compensation from other directions of money funds which he is trying his best to gain money from but will not gain more than what the compensation alleged to the company's harming him would give if all the funds were summed up together for the rest of his life It is possible. What for This is to report something. Many persons who life humanely treats truly love to gain access to more money out of greed of what they see from advertisement on television and on satellite and through the radio which drives in them the adrenaline to want to live as richly off other people's efforts who were 'blessed with much more money and intelligence to get it' and that the money would be theirs if they could get it through cunningness. This is to say that such understanding of what the punishment is is to say that society did not fulfil its role in balancing the rich people with the poor's needs and how they advertise for themselves on television. This is meaning that society is responsible for making the society for the rich and not for the poor because simply if the poor had enough opportunities to live as well a life as the rich then they would not have used any naming and shaming of businesses to have an affective method to counter corporate crimes. One of the aspects of the crime and punishment issues is the facility of mind usage to channel in certain paths to be able to get thoughts and understandings of what intelligence is serving services which have nothing but draining the ability to improvise to be able to gain money by using one's own intelligence so they find that the best way to do so is through getting more money by shaming names and reputations. Another fault that fails in the industry of the businesses which are shamed because of their actions is buying industries and intellectual properties for dust worth money and marketing it for gold mine worth money sums. This is showing the inferiority of ethics especially that such people have the rights of showing their powers openly and being accused of being insufficiently honest even if they are,simply because such institutes of understanding among the big players in the games of the industries is that to eat the big fish you must be a big fish and if the small fish gather upon you to eat you up you must disperse them and beat them before they beat you. This is to say that such abilities are in society's main ability to gain access to proper punishment and to other means of understanding what life is about and how thoughts must be channelled to be given the right people and to the right people in the society they live in to prosper properly. But how The rules of society are simply:however you treat others you will be treated,this means that the poorer you are the more you'll be given money to keep your mouth shut,the more you'll be humiliated to be able to get to be ranked among the prestigious classes of the community which shows that such understandings are what prevail in the stereotypical minds of those who work in any industry about what they see no matter how rich they are and have become but as 'upstart crows' who have had good luck 'robbing' mostly and that they deserve to get robbed in return. What if the society does punish the rich and poor alike for creating an unbalanced relationship between classes,where would ethics come from to be able to get these crises from uprising againthis is reloaded in the humans whop still are unbalanced when they have been exposed to an amount of money and want more and think that they have to get it in the unrighteous way since it is the closest and better especially that such people will not have money to sate their needs because the easier they come the more easier they go and the cycle is a closed cycle that repeats all the time until that person dies or that the people whom are shamed for the sake of 'corporate crime' die. What if both do not diethis is doing harm to society as being the one body which has to be equating the routes between the two ends which are holding the stick from both ends mostly disgusted to approach the stick an inch more from their sides to the other sides saying that this is 'shameful to be the other side's savior,rather be my ownself's savior.' What if people who are in the corporation are those who really deserve the shame and that the lawsuit is proper and clearthis is right to shame them and to give them severe punishment because people would rather fear the crack of the whip than being hit by it because the sound is stronger and shows ability of enforcing power which they could imagine upon themselves which could not be as strong unless the strength of the person who enforces the law is strong in personality and ability to make it legible and ready to be executable especially that it makes it harder on people to gain money the wrong way and the way that they feel,especially that such people as they could not rob people with power and because they will get caught easily they rob those who will have to go to court and remain for years under revision of the case until it is executed and when so they are having to go to courts again to be able to prove that the sentence is proper and true. What if the corrupt corporate deserves such alleged claims about it from people who allegedly claimed to be harmedhow would it be performedit would be preferable if the rights were properly given by those who know how to constitute a law court and those who could gain understanding of the psychology of people and especially that they are able to configure the way that people talk and speak that makes them understand how such claims come together and disperse when unfit for the whole story. Then,when is the right of the court to take the lawsuit to be shameful and acceptable to go to the court hallsit is when the damage is toned with the tone of the punishment and with the tone of the rights that are claimed to be taken and given to the wrong party. This is to say that such people such as they are do not intend to make a laughter out of the court and, yes, are able to make the rights of their responses come together with what they want to say and what they mean to get from those who have allgedly taken part of their abilities to make proper money to put in their claimer of injury's bank account without right at all. When are the questions which are asked deludingthey are deluding when they are unfocusing on the tone of the seriousness in the voice of the claimer or the claimed alleged people of the case and the rest of the yielded questions are just questions which stress on the facts which are presented to the court and the evidences without the witnesses saying anything about drives and anguish of results which they forge inside themselves to be able to get to the rights that others possess which others could not have except by going under the humanistic cover of exceedingly tiring masks which could cause them to be able to play punishment and society's rules and balances by their unethical behaviors which could not be found out and could not be put to factors which definitely show what it is that showed them who they are and that what they did they do for the sake of inferiority of character and means of appropriateness of actions which could result in the way they reveal of themselves which could edit the characteristic of the societies they live in and lively act in:whether in form of business corporations or clients in such offices. The naming and shaming is a result of the demeaning of ethics which weaker individuals who have a strong mouth but no strong ability to find proper action to their actions channelled to the faculties which deserve it so they serve the purpose of being intelligent in draining shamefully and naming the corporate crimes of people. Yet,if the corporate is the one deserving it then the fact is that the nave people who work with them and the people who are working with these nave people are just clients in more bigger corporates who do not ask whether the money is worth working with or not. This is doing the deserved punishment by law as the two sides deserve each other for their intentions and how they get things properly done in their domains. Individuals get what they deserve as they are either nave to be able to use intelligence to make much money like the ways that rich people make in the television screens with little intelligence as possible but talent of beauty and those who could make money with intelligence ranging from bureaucracy of intellect,which is the intelligence channelled in channels which are small and inferior to be called intelligent,emotionally and physically,because it depends on the stupidity of the person who gets the money and has that the corporate wants. Shaming and naming is both shaming and naming to both sides as it shows the naivety of those who work in the industry as clients and those who work with usury of the intelligence of those who do not know how to promote their welfares without proper usage of the brain. Bibliography: a-Blankenburg,E (2000) 'Multinational firms as agents of civic virtues'. Oxford:Hart Publishing. b-Braithwaite,John (1989) Crime,shame and reintegration. Cambridge university press. c-Clarke,Michael (1986) Regulating the city. Milton Keynes:Open University Press. d-Elias,Norbert (1982) State,formation and civilization:The civilizing process. Oxford:Blackwell. e-Croall,H (2001) Understanding white-collar crime. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. f-Cullen,Francis,William Maakestad and Gray Cavender (1987) Corporate crime under attack. Cincinnati,OH :Anderson Publishing g-Clarke Michael(1999) Regulation:social control of business between law and politics. London Macmillan. h-Croall,H. (2001) Understanding white-collar crime. Milton Keynes: Open University. i-Levi,Michael and David Sherwin (1995) Fraud:the unmanaged risk. London:Ernest and Young. j-Engel Matthew(1996) Tickling the public:100 years of popular press. London:Gollancz. Read More