Category: Justice

Key Issues Within The Criminal Justice Profession Which Pertain To White Collar Crimes

In this paper I will be discussing three key issues within the criminal justice profession which pertain to white collar crimes. The issues which will include: money laundering, racketeering and fraud. I will address the key points regarding these issues, create a time line from earlier crimes to crimes today as well as identify and describe multicultural and diversity issues. I will explain how members of society are aware of the duties and responsibilities within the criminal justice system. Explain the different perceptions of society, as well as the negative stereotypes associated with the criminal justice profession. Understanding how everyone is different and therefore have different cultures and beliefs that help officers of the court determine how best to proceed. To better understand the impact the criminal justice system has on society, it is vital that they understand how all of this works together to help create a better system.

Multiculturalism is defined as, “the policy or practice of giving overt recognition to the cultural needs and contributions of all the groups in a society, esp. of those minority groups regarded as having been neglected in the past” (Dictionary, 2014). Now ask yourself, how does this play a role in the criminal justice system? People have different beliefs in terms of cultural, religion, the thought process for how their government should work and even how their criminal justice system works. One group of people may think one thing is okay while another group see the same thing very differently. We as Americans experience this difference on a daily basis. America is a melting pot of differences, so we as a country are more exposed to it compared to other countries who may have very predominant beliefs. No matter how good someone might be at their job, situations that they are unfamiliar with, might make them feel uncomfortable. There are different ways that law enforcement officials can learn to be more comfortable, while helping the people they serve. A great example of this would be going beyond normal academy training. A more in-depth way is to seek additional training and classes on multiculturalism or classes on different ethnic groups. For example, some law enforcement agencies require that candidates be able to learn a secondary language. The same can be said for the issue on diversity. Officers can have a different approach for example, when serving the community, officers can try to be more personally relatable rather than professional. This could help by making the community feel more comfortable while maintaining the authority and respect they deserve as officers. A simple change in attitude can change the perception of a crowd, it can make them feel more eased rather than hostile. Now, how does this translate into the criminal justice system? Studies have shown that money laundering, racketeering and fraud are far more likely to happen in the upper in-come class of society rather than the lower in-come class of society. However, it can start in the lower classes of society, just in a different way.

Members of society have become more aware of the duties and responsibilities within the criminal justice system. The more society grows the more multicultural and diverse the United States becomes as mentioned before, the United States has become a melting pot of different cultures and diversities. Jeremiah Mosteller is a criminal justice reform policy liaison who has done some studies on the changes of policing in America. He had mentioned “The American public respect their local law enforcement agencies but have increasingly come to view police as warriors and enforcers, not guardians. In fact, almost a third of the public now view their local police as serving an enforcer role instead of a protector role” (Jeremiah Mosteller, 2018). While situation can be very different at times, it seems as if the way America polices now as compared to 20 years ago has had a major impact on society. It is the criminal justice professional’s duty, to make sure everyone is treated fairly and with the up most respect, maintaining and following all regulations both state and federal. Regardless of the crime committed, criminal justice professionals must treat every crime as different and maintain an unbiased presences, while making the best decision based off the circumstances and evidence of that specific crime. The members of society know and understand this. They hold law enforcement officials to this standard and when this standard is not met, society begins to develop the negative stereotypes associated with the criminal justice profession. This is a change that continues to happen slowly and has for the last 20 years.

Over the past two decades, there have been some wrongful acts committed by law enforcement officials. Society has noticed and its views have changed about law enforcement. Does it seem right to punish law enforcement officials or the criminal justice system as a whole because there were some who failed to maintain their bearings and integrity? No, just like it is unfair for the justice system to make judgment calls solely based on a person’s ethnic group, religion, or any other belief. We have seen this happen in the past, during the time when the mafia controlled major white collar crime organizations. More specifically, the mob or mafia was comprised of Italian-American members and this drew the attention of the law to anyone of this ethnicity. It was a common mistake but happened very often. White collar crimes are still a major factor in today’s society and some still think the mafia plays a big part. Recently, Gambino crime family leader, Frank Cali was gunned down just outside his home in Staten Island, NY. This marked the first targeted killing of a Mafia boss in the city since the death of the then head of the Gambino family, Paul Castellano, in 1985. The Mafia now consist of the Five Families, Gambino, Bonanno, Colombo, Genovese, and Lucchese. “After Gotti received a life sentence for murder and racketeering in 1992, the mob retreated to their caves,’ (Selwyn Raab, 2019). So how’s business? The Mafia moved back to their “bread and butter” after Gotti went down. Cali keep everything in the shadows to keep the eyes of the law away from him and the Gambino Family. The bread and butter for the Mafia consist of rackets: illegal gambling, loan-sharking, extortion, and drugs, mostly heroin. So will there always be white collar crimes? Yes, the criminal world see the risk to reward in favor of them, so white collar crime will most likely always be a part of American history and the history to come.

In closing, we now see that every aspect of criminal justice professions can be tied to one another. Society ties to crime, the crime to police, police to the courts and finally the courts to the corrections. Regardless if it is issues with society, multiculturalism and diversity, the duties and responsibilities of the criminal justice professionals or a little of everything, having a negative perception of the criminal justice system is something the criminal justice professional’s will have to always combat. In order for this issue to be fixed, the public and justice system must work together in harmony. The downside to that is, sometimes it only takes the mind and actions of one person to completely ruin all the hard work put forth on building a better relationship between the public and criminal justice professionals.

Restorative Justice: Effective Punishment Addressing The Implications Of Punitive Punishment

As contentious as the idea of punishment may be, it is one of the most important factors in any society. In order to understand what punishment, it, it is important to understand why we punish individuals. Many scholars have various reasons to why and how we should punish. Some argue that punishment is used as a deterrence method which deters individuals in society from committing crime. Others argue that punishment is used for rehabilitating the offender by changing their attitudes towards deviance. Whatever the reason may be, it is prominent that punishment is a way to deal with an offender who has violated the moral values of society inscribed within the criminal code. Thus, Punishment is a social construction, as it changes over time. As the morals we hold, are often shifting so, do the way in which we punish and how we punish. In the past, punishment was often seen in the form of retribution which involved physical discomfort enforced by the state and viewed by the public. However, punishment has not always remained the same over history and constantly adapted to the social atmosphere of its time. In the present day, penal practices in Canada focus on punitive approaches to deal with offenders. As we attempt to control crime rates through punishment, we continue to use punitive measures to punish individuals in Canada. This paper will analyze current contemporary issues in Canada and display how the punitive measures are failing to effectively deal with wrongdoings, both in the criminal justice system and in school. Furthermore, it will propose alternatives approaches which focus on minimizing the effects for offenders, victims and the community. Punishment does not only impact the offender but has rippling effects on society as a whole. Thus, it is crucial to address the implications of punitive measures and offer new strategies which focus on reintegration and restorative justice which have less adverse consequences for all involved in the punishment process.

In order to understand how to effectively punish wrongdoings, we must address what needs to be fixed. Currently, in Canada we are heavily focused on punitive measures to deal with offenders, thus we need to acknowledge why we choose this approach. Canada has an increasing emphasis on legislation which advocates for punitive penal approaches in the criminal justice system. As Webster and Doob (2015) ague in their article, that Canada’s political parties have altered the perception of crime within the legislation. They argue that until 2006, political parties in Canada advocated that social factors were the determinants of crime (Webster & Doob, 2015, p. 303). However, with the 2006 election and win of the conservative party under Stephen Harper’s rule, the political atmosphere changed. Webster and Doob argue that the conservative party started to follow the footsteps of the United States America and advocate for prisons to be the most effective method to deal with crime (Webster & Doob, 2015, p. 309). Incarceration is the most severe sanction that can be inflicted on a person in Canada (Neil & Carmicheal, 2015, p. 309), yet it is used greatly on its population. Neil and Carmichael also argue how incarceration rates are even higher for minorities and indigenous communities in Canada (Neil & Carmicheal, 2015). Currently, legislation favors punitive action without looking at the consequences it has for offenders, the victims, and the community. These approaches are not only seen in the criminal justice system but in school disciplinary practices.

A way in which we can analyse the implications of punitive approaches is in schools. One of the increasing issues within Canada is its adaption of a punitive punishment-based school system. Lately, Canada has been following the footsteps of the United States as it increases the use of a more security-based school model. One which relies on the use of surveillance, monitoring and tracking to enforce rules in the institution. The implication of this is an increase of more punitive measures used to discipline youth in schools. A growing consequence of the security-based school is the school to prison pipeline (STPP). The school to prison pipeline is a concept used to depict approaches and practices, particularly regarding school discipline, in the government schools that decline the likelihood of school accomplishment for youth and result in the likelihood of negative life results (Kalmin, 2019). Some practices used by current schools within Canada which are used is the excessive reliance on disciplinary actions such as suspension and expulsion (Kalmin, 2019). These sanctions divert the youth from school, thus keeping them from obtaining their education, reducing chances of success in their future and increasing chances of involvement with the criminal justice system (Skiba, Arredondo, & Williams, 2014, p. 551). To illustrate, a study conducted on suspended students found that many suspended students who became delinquent later on in life did not engage in serious delinquency until their first suspension (Skiba, Arredondo, & Williams, 2014, p. 556). Punitive approaches to wrongdoings are not effective, rather they tend to have negative consequences for the offenders. In the case of the school, students who face disciplinary exclusion result in consequences that further decrease their chances of success in the future. Rather than focusing on punitive punishments, we must focus on alternative strategies which reduce negative effects for offenders and victims.

Punitive measures are not only seen in schools but also are prominent in the criminal justice system. Currently, our criminal justice focuses on incarcerating an individual as one of the main options, without looking at the adverse effects of incarceration. Another major factor which arises from punitive measures such as incarceration is stigmatization. Incarceration not only effects a person while they are in captivity, however its influences can follow an individual while they attempt to reintegrate into society. Stigma is when a person is labelled person and linked to an undesirable characteristic, in this context a criminal (Kalmin, 2019). Stigma for imprisonment makes it difficult for past offenders to have any positive involvement in the community. Being labelled as a criminal from the justice system results in many sectors of a person live being influenced. For example, it negatively influences their ability to obtain a job. Thus, making it difficult for offenders to change their lifestyles. Munn argues that stigma and labelling can lead to individuals to be further involved in future criminal behaviors (Munn, 2012, p. 168). Furthermore, stigma can become part of their personal identity as they begin to believe that they are what they have been labelled as (Kalmin, 2019). Prison is viewed as a simple answer to solve crime; however, it comes with many adverse effects for offenders. Current approaches focus on the belief that a crime is committed against the state, there is less involvement of the victims. Punitive approaches of crime fail to involve victims in the justice process which leaves the victim to deal with their own issue themselves. Thus, punitive measures tend not to acknowledge all parties concerns in the justice process. Overall, it can be understood that punitive measures are ineffective when punishing individuals, therefore the rest of the paper will analyse best practices such as reintegration, restorative and therapeutic justice which will reduce negative effects of punishment for the offender, victims and the community.

Stigma is one of the more detrimental consequences of confinement. Stigmatization follows an individual after their sentence and influences how people and they perceive themselves. Consequently, stigma presents various barriers for reintegration into conventional society. Braithwaite argues the criminal justice system is falling is due to the way in which society shames an individual (Braithwaite, 1996, p. 12). He outlines that the societies with the lowest rates of crime follow practices which effectively shame offenders, unlike stigmatization (Braithwaite, 1996, p. 12). Rather than shaming a person, society should develop a distinction between the person and the crime they committed. Society should express its disapproval of acts, rather than people. Prisons are places where individuals are stigmatized, thus the reliance on them for punitive measures only worsen the problem. Preferably we should develop alternatives which show disapproval of the “evil deed” rather than shaming the person as an ‘evil person” (Braithwaite, 1996, p. 12). Braithwaite (1996) argues that restorative justice can apply this technique through its practices.

Restorative justice can be defined as a practice which restores victims and is a more victim-based criminal justice system model (Braithwaite, 1996, p. 15). However, restorative justice, in addition, maintains an emphasis restoring on offenders and the community, something which our current system fails to do. Restorative justice model benefits all parties involved in the criminal justice system process as it effectively resolves issues by restoring victims and offenders. One way in which restorative justice is displayed is through justice conferences, where the offender and victim parties come together to meditate the issue that occurred. Rather than discussing issues through the criminal justice system, both parties can express their concerns about the crime that was committed. For offenders, this can be utilized to reintegrative shame them rather than stigmatization. As the offender must confront the victim(s) and comprehend how their actions affected the victim(s). Brathwaite argues that this process can restore dignity for the offender (Braithwaite, 1996, p. 18). As the offender often faces public shame from being arrested, this process can restore dignity as they have an opportunity to accept responsibility for their offence and apologize sincerely to the victim (Braithwaite, 1996, p. 18). Furthermore, as Berger argues, experiences of punitive punishments can include pain, loss, and suffering, which can frequently leave impacts on offenders that last more than just the sentence (Berger, 2015, p. 2). Consequently, restorative justice seems more fit of a way to address issues for offenders. Restorative justice practices advocate that rather than individual shaming in the courthouse, the defendant should be allowed to have social support from his family, thus it can reassure that what has been done has brought shame to the family (Braithwaite, 1996, p. 18). Rather then individual guilt, the offender can feel that he/she has someone with them supporting them rather than being alone on the stand.

Restorative justice is for offenders as it can hold them accountable for their actions and be shamed, rather than being stigmatized from the criminal justice system (Braithwaite, 1996, p. 15). Consequently, restorative justice has an emphasis on victim restoration, something which is missing in our current criminal justice system. Brathwaite urges that a victim suffers a loss of dignity and a sense of security when a crime is committed against them (Braithwaite, 1996, p. 15). Moreover, a victim may feel as they are disempowered from the event, such as robbery, a person may feel unsafe in their home or walking on the street. However, restorative justice aims to restore their sense of security and dignity loss. At conferences, victims are allowed to demonstrate how the crime affected them and their families. Furthermore, victims can listen to the accounts of the offenders and examine their perspectives of what occurred. Thus, restorative justice can act as a way to “restore harmony based on a feeling that justice has been done.” (Braithwaite, 1996, p. 18). As Daley demonstrates, victims who attended conferences retained more elevated levels of recovery from the offences compared to victims in court (Daly, 2002, p. 69). However, in practicality, restorative justice comes with its implications which need to be addressed. Daley (2002) argues that restorative justice practices are lenient towards offenders and leave victims dissatisfied. To illustrate, interviews of from offenders, victims and supporters, it was concluded that victims were the least satisfied group after conferences (Daly, 2002, p. 69). Moreover, 25% said they felt worse after the conference due to the leniency towards offenders (Daly, 2002, p. 69). As restorative justice does minimize the adverse effects of punitive measures, it still does not adequately address victims. Therefore, processes in restorative justice need to place an emphasis on victims as they represent the party who has lost the most. In Canada, we need to advocate for restorative justice practices that focus on allowing the victim to have a larger influence in the mediating process. These practices happen to benefit offenders; however, they need to be victim-oriented to achieve the harmony desired among all parties. Overall, restorative justice seems to be one the best and available practice to minimize effects of penal practices on offenders and victims.

In conclusions, punishment has and continues to remain a contentious issue in society. In the present day, we have attempted a variety of approaches to deal with wrongdoings in Canada and none have been perfect. However, as discussed in the essay, punitive approaches have become a norm in the Canadian criminal justice system. Excessive penal practices have also become prominent in dealing with youth in schools. Although the aim for these sanctions is to deter individuals from committing crime, it has adverse consequences for offenders, victims and the community. As discussed, punitive measures in Canada are ineffective when it comes to addressing the concerns of victims. Furthermore, they experience adverse consequences such as stigmatization which further act to punish offenders. Stigmatization also prevents a person from reintegrating into society. As follows, it is substantial to acknowledge further approaches of dealing with wrongdoings which minimize the effects of being punished. This paper provided various approaches such as reintegrative shaming, restorative and therapeutic justice to replace our current strategies. In addition, it outlined how they should be integrated into our criminal justice system. With the incorporation of these strategies, we can hope that it will at least minimize the consequences of punitive approaches used in Canada.

Bibliography

1. Berger, B. (2015). Sentencing and the Salience of Pain and Hope. Osgoode Hall Law School Legal Studies Research Series, 11(4), 1-23.
2. Braithwaite, J. (1996). Restorative justice and a better future. The Dalhousie Review, 76(1), 9-31.
3. Daly, K. (2002). Restorative justice The Real Story. Punishment & Society, 4(1), 55-79.
4. Kalmin, A (2019) PUNISHMENT CONTINUED: STIGMA, PAROLE AND REINTEGRATION [PowerPoint Slides] Retrieved from York University Moodle Youth crime 3656: https://moodle.yorku.ca/moodle/pluginfile.php/4041012/mod_resource/content/1/Week%206%20%20WEEK%207%20-%20Punishment%20in%20the%20CJS%20-%20Student%20View.pdf
5. Kalmin, A (2019) THE SCHOOL: DISCIPLINE, PUNISHMENT (AND PREVENTION?) [PowerPoint Slides] Retrieved from York University Moodle Youth crime 3656: https://moodle.yorku.ca/moodle/pluginfile.php/4173097/mod_resource/content/1/YC%5week%209%20slides.pdf
6. Munn, M. (2012). The Mark of Criminailty. In H. &. Bruckert, Stigma revisited: Implications of the mark (pp. 147-159). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
7. Neil, R., & Carmicheal, J. (2015). The Use of Incarceration in Canada: A Test of Political and Social Threat Explanations on the Variation in Prison Admissions across Canadian Provinces, 2001–2010*. Sociological Inquiry, 309-332.
8. Skiba, R., Arredondo, M., & Williams, N. T. (2014). More Than a Metaphor: The Contribution of Exclusionary Discipline to a School-to-Prison Pipeline. EQUITY & EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION,, 546-564.
9. Webster, C. M., & Doob, A. (2015). US punitiveness ‘Canadian Style’? Cultural Values and Canadian Punishment Policy. Punishment & Society, 299-321.

Rogerian Argument on Serving Justice by Killing a Murder

The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. The vast majority of individuals facing execution were convicted of crimes that are indistinguishable from crimes committed by others who are serving prison sentences, crimes such as murder committed in the course of an armed robbery. Since then, the debate if capital punishment should be allowed in our progressive society has raised. Only a handful of countries, including the United States, are currently implementing the death penalty, but many wonder if this is an effective way to approach this capital offense. Several people tune in into the debate, which discusses the positives and negatives of controversial topics that are relevant to our society. At first, capital punishment is misled to the beliefs of bringing justice to the affected families, less expensive than a life sentence, and fair. However, the death penalty is not morally right which leads to the need to nullify it because there are better ways to bring justice, it is expensive, and criminals have poor quality defense.

Supporters of the death penalty have valid points to maintain capital punishment. One of the valid points is that the affected families are getting justice for their loved ones like the saying “An eye for an eye”. Since the death penalty is quicker than sentencing the criminals to imprisonment for life it leads to the belief that there are fewer resources involved in the process making it cheaper because there’s no need to provide them with food, clothes, and medical assistance. The third most important point is that the accused is being trialed fairly because through the protection of the Constitution. However, an execution is a consequential decision and many factors need to be analyzed before our nation takes another life.

There are better ways to bring justice than capital punishment an example is life in prision. Life in prison is a better choice than death penalty, the “Fifth Amendment Argument” is not a valid reason, in which it states that death penalty is protected by the constitution, for keeping the peanalty. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated that “the death penalty coasts more, delivers less, and puts innocent lives at risk”(n.p.). The ACLU defends the point that a sentence of life without parole would be a better option by being morally correct.

Additionally, the “Fifth Amendment Agurment” does not provide a reason to keep the death penalty and it is now considered “a legally prohibited cruel and unusual punishment” (Blocher 293). When ending someone’s life by capital punishment, is the same as committing a similar crime that got the criminal sentenced in the first place. The government is basically saying if a person kills someone, they will then be killed. This logic seems backwards if one of our nation’s goals is to reduce these crimes. Bryan Stevenson, JD, who is a Professor at New York University of Law, explains that no one, especially the government has the right to take someone’s life(ProCon). In order for both groups to understand each other, they need to fix the root of this issue: the crime itself.

Capital punishment is leaving the government broke due to its expenses for lethal shots. The “death-penalty system is so slow, inconsistent and inefficient that it costs far more than life-without-parole alternative”(Von Drehle 32). When a person is being trialed for death penalty it can take as long as twenty years plus the cost of the lethal shot in Texas 2012 the cost within one year went from $83 to $1300 leaving Texas with a $4.1 billion budget gap (Safdar). If Texas is willing to have a budget gap to buy the lethal shot a better investment is to improve the public school systems such as the teachers salaries, or even better pay for the affected families to go see a therapist that will help them to carry on with a peaceful life.

Lastly, it’s not a fair trial for everyone, especially to minorities, due to the lack of representation provided by the lawyers. Since the beginning of the US, it has been controlled by the people with wealth and—in most cases—white this are great assets when it comes to trials. Unfurtialy, not everyone has this quality that making us an easy target. Most of the trials against minorities African-american and Hispanics “adequate legal representation is rare” due to the amount of poverty this ethic groups suffer(Gill 23). By not having a good legal representation the criminal might get erroneous convicted an example is “3.3% to 5% of all convictions in capital rape-murder cases in the U.S. in the 1980s were erroneous convictions”(Honlam 153). “At least through the criminal justice lens, some lives are more valuable than others” when it shouldn’t be, but in reality we have never seen a white and wealthy men sent to die (Rizer 47). A trial “it is supposed to treat all equally, but the application of the death penalty—a final and irreversible punishment—has been proven to be unequally applied”(Harris).

The capital punishment is a way for criminals to escape their punishment, as well as being costly immoral, andunfaily process, this method is not an unacceptable sway to deal with pushinishing criminals. The people put on death row are the ones that have committed the most heinous crimes. It would be better to have them sit in prison for the rest of their lives, instead of ending it altogether. Since, no one knows where they go when they die, they could be taking the easy way out for their crime. By finding common ground between supporters and opponents of criminal punishment is going to take work but it is possible. Correctively, the groups could solve the problem of thriving crime rates. Instead of arguing about who is right when it comes to capital punishment, each group could use their strengths to combat crime. The supporters of capital punishment should consider the fact that justice is not served by killing criminals, and it is giving the government too much power to have the ability to end a life.

Works cited

1. Blocher, Joseph. “The Death Penalty and The Fifth Amendment.” ​Northwestern University Law Review Online,​ vol. 111, no. 1, 15 July 2016, pp.275-293. Academic Search Complete, web.ebscohost.comeztcc.edu:2048/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=8d907cc0-7a6c-46b79df0a39efc% 40sessionmgr4010&hid=4204&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbG12ZQ%3d%3d#AN-120553778& db=a9h.
2. Gill, Lauren. “Fighting for Life on Death Row.” Nation, vol. 308, no. 11, Apr. 2019, pp. 22–26. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=135730713&site=eds-live&scope=site.
3. ProCon. “Death Penalty ProCon.org.” ​Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed? ​ProCon.org, 2017.
4. Rizer, Arthur, and Marc Hyden. “A Dying Shame: The State Is Not God, and the Death Penalty Is Not Infallible.” American Conservative, vol. 17, no. 6, Nov. 2018, p. 47. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=132395106&site=eds-live&scope=site.
5. Safdar, Khadeeja. “Legally Killing People Has Gotten A Lot More Expensive.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 31 Mar. 2012, www.huffpost.com/entry/lethal-injection_n_1391408.
6. “Senator Kamala Harris on California Death Penalty Moratorium.” U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of California, 13 Mar. 2019,www.harris.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-kamala-harris-on-california-death-penalty-moratorium.
7. “The Truth About Life Without Parole: Condemned to Die in Prison.” ACLU of Northern CA, 18 Oct. 2017, www.aclunc.org/article/truth-about-life-without-parole-condemned-die-prison.

Tax Avoidance: Distributive, Compensatory And Retributive Justice

Introduction

West (2018) describes ethics as someone’s moral principles of good or bad behaviour where it’s not based on consequences of these actions. Another view of ethics involves having a sense of duty to do the right thing as a company and for others (Hoover and Pepper, 2015).

Tax avoidance is understood as deliberately sidestepping taxes to lower the tax paid to governments, this method is legal but not predicted by the government involved (www.ibe.org, 2013).

There are questions around the ethics of companies avoiding paying taxes where they can, some deem this practice as unethical due to the results on society when taxes are avoided. This Analysis will look at the professionalism of accountants, Justice in tax avoidance methods of Apple and how it can affect societies.

Professionalism

The role of the accountant in relation to company tax avoidance is outlined by IFAC (2020). They state that the accountant’s role has 5 main principles: Integrity, Objectivity, Professional Compliance and due care, Professional Behaviour and Confidentially.

This means that accountants should engage in these areas when accounting and should consider the implications for society and the company they work for. Accountants need to be honest, be professional and skilful, to not show bias and comply with all laws and regulations that an accountant and business should follow and lastly they should be confidential with the information they require to do their job effectively (IFAC,2020).

It’s the job of the accountant to confirm the correct taxes are paid by companies and determine that no company is illegally avoiding taxes (World Market Intelligence News, 2016). Accountants have a moral duty to deliver the correct information about taxes to not only the companies they work for but to society as well. This is because the actions of the accountants and companies regarding taxes will affect the society in which they are in (Stiglitz et al, 2020) and (Peston, 2013). It’s estimated that $100 billion annually has been taken away from developing countries due to corporate tax avoidance every year, this will affect the growth of these areas and therefore affects society(The Irish Times, 2019).

Regarding Apple in Ireland, the EU Commission claimed that €13 billion is owed to Ireland because of tax avoidance. However, it has been ruled that there was no illegal state aid and had in fact paid valid taxes due to the low tax rates Apple pays in Ireland at 12.5% (Stiglitz et al, 2020). The Apple accountants have therefore been honest in how to pay as low taxes as is legal, they have kept confidentiality, followed laws and been overall professional.

Justice

In this section I will analyse the justice of multinational tax avoidance in Ireland and in relation to Apple. Justice is a form of Teleological Ethics and applies that what is good depends on just how much of a good result is achieved (Hoover and Pepper, 2015). According to Gunnell and Walsh (2012), it’s widely viewed that companies shouldn’t pay more than they legally owe. It is because of this general rule that tax avoidance occurs, meaning that companies try to minimise the amount of taxes they owe in order to pay the least amount legally. This is essentially ‘The Duke of Westminster Approach’, although some people believe this should be modernised (Gunnell and Walsh 2012).

Apple are undergoing tax avoidance by setting up subsidiary companies in tax haven areas and transferring funds to these subsidiaries or they are also getting these subsidiaries to buy their own products from china and then upselling them in tow tax countries such as Ireland to then pay the lower corporation and income taxes here (Peston, 2013).

Distributive Justice

Distributive Justice is defined as highlighting equal allocations of outcomes (Chen, 2018) or as Brouwer and van der Deijl (2017), states it can be described as getting what we deserve from the community. Therefore, we should consider the justice and how it should be equally distributed throughout an area or community.

Today, taxes are not being distributed equally in individual countries due to global tax avoidance. This can be clearly seen in America, where corporation tax represented 32.1% of taxes (1952) but today, only 8.9% is represented in corporation taxes (Peston, 2013). Today, 40% of MNC’s profits are moved to low tax countries such as Ireland (Stiglitz et al, 2020). This indicates that there is tax avoidance occurring by moving money to offshore areas or low tax countries.

Apple has clearly done this in Ireland by only paying 0.005% of annual tax in some years (Stiglitz et al, 2020).

An important factor to consider is whether the countries economy is being affected. If some companies are taking advantage of the tax havens, then this leads to income inequality and can create a bigger income divide in society (Stiglitz et al, 2020).

Peston (2013), Argues that the MNC’s are causing poor growth in the area they expect to thrive in by avoiding taxes and therefore in turn diminishing funding that will help community growth. The Irish Times (2019) agrees that tax avoidance diminishes revenue for countries therefore, there is not enough funds for infrastructure and other government funded investments in society. Some people claim that if all corporation taxes where lower world-wide that it would encourage companies to invest back into society they are a part of by creating jobs and invest in community projects (Stiglitz et al, 2020).

Apple claims to pay all the taxes due in each country they are involved in and while they have received criticism for apparently reducing taxes paid in America, they claim to pay billions of dollars in overseas income at the American rate of 35% and also say they paid over 35 billion dollars globally on corporation tax in the last 3 years (www.Apple.com, 2017). Apple claims to have followed all laws regarding taxes and haven’t done anything illegal. They claim to have paid a world-wide income tax rate of 26.1% in 2016 (Guider et al,2016).

Compensatory Justice

Compensatory justice is when an unjust has occurred and the people are looking to correct something that has made them unequal to the rest of society (Asal and Sommer, 2019).

The EU Commission has brought the case against Apple and Ireland and they believe compensation is due (Guider et al, 2020). Apple owes Ireland more tax as well as other countries possibly having a claim on some of the taxes owed due to apple moving money earned elsewhere to offshore accounts. While the EU Court of Justice ruled on behalf of Apple and Ireland, the commission has vowed to repeal this decision because they believe Irish Society and government are owed compensatory justice (Guider et al, 2020)

Retributive Justice

Retributive justice is the idea that anyone who commits some form of a crime should be punished accordingly (Avraham and Statman, 2013).

It has been estimated that developing countries lose $100 billion annually due to corporate tax avoidance every year. This then in turn limits these countries spending on areas in need of revenue growth such as roads, healthcare and education (The Irish Times, 2019). Should these countries receive distributive justice for the loss of revenue?

In relation to Apple the deal they have with Ireland has been deemed legitimate by the EU Court of Justice, who state it is a sweetheart deal but not an illegal one (Guider et al, 2020). It can possibly been seen to be more of a punishment for society if Apple left Ireland because they were forced to pay back €13 billion, this would cause job losses in Ireland and reduce taxes paid to the Irish government significantly therefore, poorly affecting Irish society (Guider et al, 2020).

Overall, Apples tax avoidance is ethical because the EU Court of Justice has found no wrongdoing and no distributive, compensatory or retributive justice has taken place.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe Apple is acting ethically when they participate in multinational tax avoidance. They are not breaking any laws by paying the least amount of tax legally allowed and they still pay large amounts of taxes to various countries that they reside in. By being a part of so many countries Apple contributes to each society by job increases, taxes and community supports. Apples accountants, while helping them to avoid taxes where possible are being professional by keeping Apples affairs private and not disclosing information to outsiders. The accountants are keeping in mind the interests of the company while also following all laws and regulations in each country. There is also no distributive, compensatory or retributive justice shown because Apple have not broken any laws on tax.