The Murder of Emmett Till

This is a documentary which chronicles the account of Emmett Till, a fourteen year old African American young man who was viciously put to death by two Caucasian men for whistling at a Caucasian woman. His murder came about despite the fact that he was unaware of having broken an accepted law of the south at the time that African American men could not have any relations with Caucasian women. Emmett’s mother decided to place his body inside a Chicago church for four days so that the entire world could see the crime that had been committed against her son. It can also be said to have been a mother’s attempt to protest against the racism in the south and a bid to appeal for justice for her son. The news of Emmett’s death was spread by the media all over the world and this ensured that the story became quite common not only at the local level but also at the international level. The injustice of this story is that those who had committed this heinous crime were acquitted by an all Caucasian jury and as a result, there was no justice for Emmett Till. It is indirectly because of this incident that the civil rights movement came to develop and it can be said that it is due to Emmett’s sacrifice that this movement developed in strength.

African Americans have for a long time been depicted in a negative light in which they have been presented in a way which has made them to be considered to be a race of criminals, or worse, animals. African Americans, for instance, are portrayed as being some of the most violent people in the United States, and this has created a stereotype where all African Americans are often profiled as being potential criminals, an allegation which does not hold any truth in the reality of this nation. In addition, the view of African Americans in American society has been influenced by the long history of racial relations in the United States where the Caucasian dominated hierarchy tended to look down upon it. In addition, because of the unconscious Caucasian belief that African Americans are inferior, this has formed a mentality where individuals look upon this minority group as being the enemy of the public. It is a fact that the presentation of African Americans by the media has to be brought under control because at the moment, it has developed into a fierce social problem that has to be dealt with firmly. This is because of the fact that the development of equal rights for all human beings has become a fundamental aspect of human lie and to deny African Americans their own would be to go against the ideals of the society.

One of the most noteworthy cases that have raised the same emotions as that of Emmett Till that have developed in the current world is the Zimmerman case which, through the media, has gained the attention of people not only in America but also the entire world. Almost the same events which took place in the Emmett case recurred in the Trayvon Martin case where the perpetrator, Zimmerman, was freed by the jury despite the fact that he had murdered an innocent African American teenager. One of the issues that have been given prominence by the most of the individuals following this case has been the fact that this is not the first time that such a crime has been committed in the United States and the murderer has gotten away with it. Despite this being the situation, it can be said that these cases tend to be made more prominent than normal by the media and this has ensured that many of the people in the world have come to the realization that despite the development of Affirmative action, the racial situation in the United States has remained more or less the same. This situation has also developed into a negative one because of the media’s tendency to sensationalize  the news concerning the murders of such African American individuals such as Emmett Till and this has made it difficult for juries to provide justice because of the racial tensions that come about as a result. Therefore, instead of coming up with solutions to the murder of African Americans by Caucasians, the American media has become a means through which the perpetrators of this crime end up being set free by those who would otherwise have considered the facts before doing so.

Proactive Management of Risk at UPS

Since the founding of UPS, this company has come to face many challenges and many of these said challenges can be attributed to the way through which this company has come to manage risk. Conventional policies have been adopted by this company in ensuring that it not only provides the best services to their customers but it also ensures the safety of the goods that it transports. This has made a majority of its customers’ gain the confidence necessary for them to continue working with UPS in their day to day lives since it guarantees them against any profit losses.

Through the establishment of its proactive shipment monitoring scheme, has encouraged its customers to turn towards the acquisition of UPS policies because of the risks involved in the diverse number of shipments that they tend to move (Jaeger, 2010). The employment of this scheme has ensured that UPS has reduced the significant amounts of uncertainty with regards to their effectiveness hence proving the fact that its policies are farsighted.

Among of the most widely used strategies that have been implemented by many companies has been the introduction of new products to secure their customer bases, and UPS has not been an exception. In current business environment, the adoption of a proactive shipment scheme has become a practical necessity that has proven to be highly successful for UPS since it adopted it and it as ensured that it has continued to have more customers. It can, therefore, be said that the adoption of this scheme has enabled UPS to gain an edge over its competitor and has ensured that it remains the largest company, by the number of customers, of its kind in the world.

 The adoption of the abovementioned scheme by UPS can be said to be extremely prominent in nature and these have been put in place as a way of targeting those customers who are security conscious. This current scheme, therefore, has required that the company develop a strategy which will make the customers within its target market to wish to procure the services of UPS because they would feel that their shipments are not only safe, but would also be guaranteed that they are secured against any losses (Williamson, 2013).

The biggest benefit of this scheme is the fact that the company’s customers can introduce well-organized, inventive models and improve the services to their customers. Because of the development of this shipment scheme by UPS, a large retail company can now introducing an original model to increase inventory between the stores that it owns and ensure the provision of better product accessibility.

Among the benefits that can be acquired by customers is that there is regular insurance coverage. Thos coverage will cater for the selling price, expedited shipping fees and temperature-sensitive shipment intervention services.

In a competitive business environment, the task of bringing in customers who can create a profit has become a priority for many companies in the country and these include UPS. This is because there has developed the realization that UPS must provide acceptable returns to its shareholders or it might end up losing investors. 

Common Law and the Separation of Powers

It is a well known fact that the doctrine of the separation of powers is an essential part of the common law and that because of this principle; the modern forms of democracy have developed. The common law is part of the guiding principle behind the separation of powers and as such has had a strong influence over the years concerning the development of new ideas that have led to the radical changes to the legal system of the country. While it is a fact that the doctrine of the separation of powers is an essential part of the legal system of the country, there have recently developed the idea that radical changes to the legal system can best be carried out by experienced politicians who have the knowledge concerning whether the public would be for or against such changes. While this may be the case, it is important to note that the interpretation of the laws of the country is the preserve of the judiciary and the purpose of the legislature is to only create the said laws. One would even go as far as to state that once the legislature has passed laws, it should have no further business attempting to make any changes or interpreting the said laws because of the fact that it does not have the powers to do so. If it gets involved in such a direct way, then it is possible that it would be infringing on the powers vested on the judiciary, hence undermining the need for the separation of powers, which is an essential part for a strong democracy such as Australia.

Despite this, the statement that legislators, rather than the courts, have the most experience that can be used to ensure that they would know what the public reaction would be if radical changes to laws were made, can be considered to be pertinent and worthy of further discussion. It is a fact that politicians, especially legislators, have more experience in dealing with the public and would have better success in convincing it about any changes that are made to the laws. This is because they tend to be in more contact with the public than the judiciary and this may help them in dealing with it with little or no resentment from the latter (Clarkson, 235). It has become the norm for politicians to use the internet for their campaigns for those laws that they would like to pass because it has many users and such use enable them to garner public support for the laws or changes to it that they are trying to pass. The power that has been vested on the legislature, that of making laws, can be considered an essential factor for its having the right to make radical adjustments to the said laws, because it is where the laws originate. It is perhaps the legislature which has the most understanding of the laws it creates and for what purpose it has been created. This makes the legislators the most qualified people to make the changes to the laws which they deem necessary to ensure that they are in compliance with the desirable way of life.

That said, however, it leaves the question of what the role of the judiciary should be in the making of adjustments to laws to suit the current way of life. While it is true to say the the legislators have the most experience and that they would know how the public would react to any changes to laws, it should be considered that the members of the judiciary have made a study of the law, as is their duty. In such studies, they would have seen how the different laws affect the lives of individuals and may have considered the way any changes to the said laws will affect any laws of similar value in the society. One would argue that the judiciary also has a stake in the making of radical changes to laws because it is well versed in the study of the development of such laws and the precedence that has been set in previous court rulings (Flanagan and Ahern, 6). Therefore, the need to ensure that the power of the judiciary to interpret the law, according to the common law, is preserved has become essential because without this power, it would mean that the legislature will be usurping the role of the judiciary. The role of the legislators in the making of radical changes to laws should be minimal at best because while these legislators might make these changes to the law, they may be influenced by the need to take advantage of it to maintain their own order in power. Adjustments made by the judiciary, however, have the potential of lasting a long time because this arm of government does not make changes out of selfish interests and instead makes them for the purpose of making the laws serve the legal system better (Taksa, 82).

The fear that radical changes to the law might end up serving the interests of some specific groups is a reason for such changes to be left to the courts because any changes made by the latter have the potential of not being biased towards any particular group. While it is important for experienced legislators to be involved in the making of radical changes to laws, it is equally important for there to be regulations in their involvement so that they do not take complete control of the process. It is a fact that there are some politicians who tend to propagate agendas which may be harmful to other people either within their own countries or without and these can be achieved through radical changes to laws (Pastore, 615). An example of this is when some politicians propagate racist views and the creation of laws which can be considered to be racist, claiming that their own race or ethnic group is far more superior to all the others in the country. If a legislator in a multiethnic and multicultural society such as Australia does this, then there is a possibility that any changes to laws that he institutes dealing with the racial relations will most likely cause friction between the ethnic groups in this society. To prevent this, it is necessary to put very strict restrictions on the role of legislators in the making of radical changes to laws so that the general public interest is protected against any such individuals who may have some personal interest in the making of these changes.

The capability of legislators to self regulate when making changes to laws is very much open to question because their influence is so widespread throughout the country that if they convince the public to accept the changes they make and things do not turn out as expected, then there might be chaos. There are, however, some countries that use the common law, such as the United Kingdom, where there has developed a system of checks and balances that ensures that while parliament has the sole responsibility of making laws, the judiciary has also been given the responsibility of interpreting the said laws, and at times making adjustments to it to suit the general constitutional needs (Hocking and Scott, 76). An example of this, in the case of the United Kingdom, is in laws that deal with the European Convention where it has become the norm for the courts to make independent decisions especially when making judgements concerning those laws that are in contravention with the said Convention. This idea should also be applied in Australia so that the judiciary, instead of the legislature, should have the freedom to make radical changes to laws so that they not only suit whatever unique situations that have arisen in cases, but also ensure that the human rights of individual Australians are protected from any form of abuse. Ethics have to play a great role in influencing the process of making any radical changes to laws since the people involved in the making of such changes do so for the sake of what they believe to be for the good of the public. Those laws that are, however, proven to have been wrongfully changed, because of the consideration of ethics, have to be returned to their previous form because to do otherwise would be a breach in the ethical values of either the legislators or the courts involved in the process (Sim, 102). Ethics act as a guide when it comes to making a decision about the laws which should be radically changed and which should not to suit the social situation at hand and this is done to ensure that there is fairness in the process.

It can be argued that the main function that should be given courts when making changes to laws should be the power to deduce legislation so that it is in compatibility with the human rights of the people of the country and this should not mean that the legislation is invalidated, but should ensure that the court swiftly makes amendments to the legislation so that it is in accord with the desired status. The amendment to laws made by courts, however do not necessarily remain permanent, and, in fact, it has been known for courts of appeal to overturn decisions made by lower courts in these matters. Courts should be given wide powers to ensure that they are able to interpret both principal and subsidiary legislation so that these laws can be made to achieve the desired effect (Appleby, 265). The interpretation of these powers should go beyond the normal statutory interpretation because they are likely to involve the interpretation of legislation made in the past as well as those which are to be made in future. Any changes that are made to laws by courts can be done by following three extraordinary different procedures, the first of which is the insertion of words into a statute if it is found that there is none which appear in it. The second procedure that can be used when making changes is by having words omitted from a statute if they are found to be contravening the rights of individual Australians. Finally, there are times when changes to legislation is not necessary as long as a court declares that the said legislation is in compliance with the needs of all individuals in the society.

It is, however, a fact that the current Australian legal system has been developed in such a way as it has come to embrace the opinions of those individuals, mostly legislators, whose main purpose is to ensure that changes are made to laws in order to serve their own political needs. Some of the most radical changes to laws that have been made in recent years have been made despite their being no sufficient proof from the legislators involved to show that the said law has in any way been detrimental to the wellbeing of the public. While the separation of powers as well as the common law is still one of the most paramount in the system of Australian government (Weiden, 335), it has come to be put aside in many cases because of the fact that many of the courts have been under immense pressure to preside over the making of radical changes to legislation in the shortest time possible and this has ensured that the quality of the laws that have resulted tend to be questionable because of the lack of serious consideration of the consequences that they may have in the public domain. It has, therefore, become necessary for there to be cooperation between the various arms of government because this is the only way through which individual laws can either be amended or changed radically in order to conform to the contemporary way of life. It is indeed essential to not only involve the legislature in the amendment of laws but also the judiciary because these two arms are, out of necessity, obliged to work together so that there might be harmony in the Australian society.