Law

Disputed are resolved outside the court with the help of this method. A large part of dispute resolution field is covered by Alternative Dispute Resolution processes. In first paragraph we will see the introduction of Alternative Dispute Resolution, in second paragraph we will discuss about the types of Alternative Dispute Resolution processes, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution in third and forth paragraph respectively.

Alternative dispute resolution is also known as ADR processes. ADR processes are the processes which are used to resolve the dispute informally. In this process the parties meet with a professional third party who assists them in resolving the dispute. It is a less formal and often more consensual way to resolve the dispute than is done in the courts. ADR is not come into the government judicial process. In some last years Alternative dispute resolution has obtained extensive popularity among both the general public and the legal profession. Now courts give suggestion to some parties to take their case in Alternative dispute resolution units. Popularity of ADR can be explained with the decreasing load on the courts.

Negotiation, mediation, collaborative law, and arbitration are the main types of ADR. In negotiation parties resolve the dispute themselves; there is no third party to provide resolution process. Third party is present in mediation that provides the facility of the resolution process. Mediator word is used for this third party. A solution is suggested by this third party. This solution cannot be imposed on the parties. Collaborative law is also known as collaborative divorce. In this process each party contain an attorney. In arbitration process parties reach at an agreement. There is a third party, called private judge, impose resolution. Arbitration is generally used when there is a dispute on the agreement signed in collaborative law. Beyond these basic types of alternative dispute resolutions case evaluation, early neutral evaluation, family group conference, neutral fact-finding, and ombuds are other different form of ADR.

Mediation is used from hundreds of years. ADR has grown in United State in recent years. It has many advantages. ADR processes like mediation and arbitration decrease the pressure on the overburdened court system. Alternative dispute resolution is cheaper. It imposes less cost than the court system to the parties. In this system parties can decide the individuals who will decide their dispute resolution. Nowadays ARD can be conducted online. Resolving dispute online is known as online dispute resolution. ADR is better than the lawsuits according to many advocates. ADR is comparatively faster than other system of dispute resolution. It is less expensive; hence it is very beneficial for poor people. Parties can directly participate in ADR processes. Parties reach at an agreement in ADR processes. In some cases the relationship between parties are improved by the ADR. It is a key advantage of the ADR processes. Commercial disputes, family Law disputes, neighbourhood disputes, discrimination complaints, health service complaints, work related complaints and many more disputes can be resolved by the ADR process. Confidentiality is the another advantage of ADR. The reason for a dispute and the basis upon which it is resolved are kept confidential in ADR. it is a great advantage of ADR system. For example in IT industry confidentiality is very essential for the disputes over intellectual property. Parties can choose a time according to their convenience in ADR processes. It is a very flexible and less formal process. Multi-party disputes can be resolved easily with the help of ADR. It provides the opportunity to all the parties to be heard on all relevant issues. There is no need for separate claims. Means it avoids the extra expense of separate claims.

Court has a long waiting list, but in ADR system there is no waiting list. A specialist can be used as a private judge to resolve the dispute. That judge would be able to give a reasonable solution which will be acceptable to the parties involved.

Everything has two aspects good and bad. ADR does not have only advantages. There are some disadvantages also. ADR processes cannot be used to resolve all the cases. Some cases and some complaints should go court or police. ODR is not satisfactory. Some critics say that ADR provides “second-class justice.” According to them the people, who cannot afford to go to court, use ADR process to resolve their dispute. Because of the cooperative nature of ADR one party cannot win a case in fully manner. According to them ADR is just a settlement and agreement. ADR process encourages compromise. Compromise is not a bad idea to resolve a dispute, but it is not appropriate for others. Another disadvantage is that ADR resolve the dispute privately, not publicly. It has no government records. They are not exposed into public. It may become a reason of concern in future. In courts cases are exposed in front of public and they have government records also. For example the case of the harmful products produced by a company can be resolved out side the court, without exposing it into the public. On the other hand it can be resolved officially and publicly in court. Court can remove all the products of that company from the market. It cannot be done by ADR. In some cases ADR processes waste the time and cost. For example when a dispute is not resolved by the ADR then parties have to go in court. One side can be able to dominate the other in some situations, for example in employment and divorce cases. Outcome of a dispute cannot be predicted easily through ADR. There is a need of enforcement in ADR processes.

References

1. Alternative dispute resolution. (2008)
2. Spangler, B. (2003). Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Web.
3. Alternative Dispute Resolution. (2008).
4. Alternative dispute resolution – is it worth it? (2001).

Introduction

Robert Hass, former senior vice president for marketing and sales for Smith & Wesson asserts that “the company and the industry as a whole are fully aware of the extent of the criminal misuse of handguns… In spite of their knowledge, however, the industry’s position has consistently been to take no independent action to ensure responsible distribution practices”. To have government permission to own a gun or not – is the topic of many debates for the past three decades in the United States.

On one hand, supporters of gun control believe that the ready availability of guns contributes to the increase in crime and violence all over the country and hence should be banned. On the other hand, people who are against gun control believe that crime and violence will increase if people are forbidden to have resources to defend themselves.

Two recent events fuel the debate on gun control: the shooting spree in April 2007 at Virginia Tech University that resulted in the loss of 32 lives of students and faculty (APN 1) and the conclusion of the Supreme Court in June 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense (Greenhouse 1). Gun control is a significant part of the answer to the problem of crime and violence and should be enforced through regulations of gun ownership and use.

Crime, Violence, and Guns

The United States has the largest number of injuries due to firearms in the whole world. Research shows that suicide rates are positively correlated with the rate of gun ownership (Kaplan and Gelling 1227) (UU 1). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (UU 1). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or the number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (UU 1).

Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner (UU 1) It has also been found that there is a positive correlation between homicide rates and the availability of guns in developed nations (Siegel 51). Despite these research findings, the number of firearms in the hands of private individuals is growing every year at an accelerated pace. This implies that the laws of the Federal government, as well as the states, are not stringent enough to restrict the manufacture, sale, and use of firearms by ordinary citizens. This makes gun control a necessary social measure.

Crime and Gun Control

According to FBI Director Louis Freeh, the availability of assault weapons increases crime in society. In a speech given to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the new FBI director said: “In a civilized society like ours, there is simply no place for assault weapons, which serve only to provide a source of strength and power to America’s criminal element. These weapons of destruction must be banned. Not just a ban on the importation, but a ban on domestic manufacture and a ban on distribution of these weapons of death” (Arbetter 11). Guns make it easy to kill or injure a person.

According to Jeffrey A. Roth’s Firearms and Violence, which is an NIJ Research in Brief published in February 1994, in robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed. Official statistics show that in the United States, about 30,000 people die from gun wounds every year (Update 2-Senate Passes Gun Bill in Response to Rampage, Reuters, December 19, 2007) (Xinhua 1). The USA Today reported on December 5, 2007, that gun killings have climbed 13 percent overall since 2002 (Xinhua 1). An estimated 25 percent of all violent crime incidents were committed by an armed offender.

Examples of Gun Shootings

On April 16, 2007, the Virginia Tech University witnessed the deadliest shooting rampage in modern US history with 33 killed and more than 30 others injured (AFP, April 17, 2007) (Xinhua 1). On February 12, 2007, two separate gun killings in the Salt Lake City and Philadelphia claimed eight lives and injured several other people (The Associated Press, February 13, 2007). On June 9, in Delevan, Wisconsin, a gunman killed four adults and two infants (Chicago Tribune, June 11, 2007).

On October 31, a 38-year-old pregnant woman was caught in gang gunfire while returning home after trick-or-treating with her children on Halloween night. She was shot in the head and killed (Chicago Tribune, November 2, 2007). On December 5, a man opened fire at a shopping mall in Omaha, Nebraska, killing eight people and injuring five others. The man then killed himself (The Associated Press, December 5, 2007). On December 7, three separate gun killings took place in San Jose, the acclaimed “safest city” in the United States. Four people were killed by guns in the city in less than one month. (Ming Pao, December 9, 2007).

On December 9, two separate gun killings in churches killed five people and injured other five in Colorado (Reuters, December 9, 2007). On December 24 and 25, at least nine people were killed in several gun killings in New York City (www.chinesenewsnet.com, December 26, 2007). On December 26, the bodies of six people who died from gun wounds were discovered at a residential building in eastern Seattle (www.chinesenewsnet.com, December 27, 2007).

Youth and Guns

The children and the youngsters of the nation are the future. To endanger their lives by the free availability of guns is to endanger the future of the nation. Youth are in a vulnerable stage in life and they often equate the use of guns with heroism. In their hands, guns can be fatal and not necessarily used in self-defense. Children are innocent, ignorant, and curious by nature. If guns are left unconcealed at any time, they are likely to play with them and get injured. The responsibility of saving the lives of children and youth rests with the mature adult population who must support gun control.

According to a report by the US Department of Justice in December 2007, among students ages 12-18, there were about 1.5 million victims of nonfatal crimes at school in 2005 (Gottlieb 1). In the same year, 8 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported being threatened or injured with a weapon in the previous 12 months (Gottlieb 1). From July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, among youth ages 5-18, there were 17 school-associated violent deaths (Indicators of School Crime and Safety 2007, US Department of Justice, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) (Gottlieb 1). Statistics also show that firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence (CDC, 2004) (UU 1).

Child Safety and Guns

Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home (UU 1). The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim (UU 1). In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked and loaded firearms within easy reach of children (UU 1). Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occurred in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (UU 1). This shows that the wide availability of guns is proving to be dangerous to children.

Because of such dangers, there has been a call for use of locks on handguns and technology that would allow only the owner of the gun to operate it. The idea has been found highly practical as the industry has responded to this proposal by developing several types of locking devices. This gun control measure is also opposed by gun supporters who feel that if the gun is kept locked it would not serve its purpose in self-defense.

Moreover, in the context of children, gun supporters say that it is more important to educate the gun owners about safe handling and storage of the gun and teach children to stay away from the firearms (DLPF 3). All these are minor gun violence control measures. The most effective step would be to keep firearms away from home to avoid a tragic accident involving a child because children will always be children and it is not reasonable to demand responsible behavior from them. The best way would be to keep guns away from home through gun control.

Shooting Sprees and Guns

On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy sprayed 100 or so bullets from a rapid-fire assault rifle into a crowd of children outside a Stockton, Calif., elementary school, killing five students and wounding 29 others and one teacher before committing suicide by shooting himself with a piston. He set off a national wave of shock and horror. If innocent children playing harmlessly in the schoolyard are no longer safe from heavily armed criminals and lunatics, who is? (Church 1).

More recently, on April 16, 2007, at Virginia Tech University a disturbed student went on a rampage shooting 32 students and faculty. This is the worst campus massacre in American history and serves as a reminder of how dangerous guns can be in the wrong hands. But gun-rights defenders point out that guns are not the reason behind violence but the people behind the guns. They hold that violent behavior should be treated rather than controlling the availability of guns. The whole world sees otherwise. They see that the United States has more gun violence than other countries because it is easier to own a gun in the United States.

On a recent list of the fourteen worst mass shootings in Western democracies since the nineteen-sixties, seven of them happened in the United States and no other country on the list has had a repeat performance as severe as the first (Gopnik 1). In Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, a gunman killed sixteen children and a teacher at their school. But gun control was ushered in and the British gun laws were made stringent. There has been no mass shooting there since then. In Quebec, after a school shooting took the lives of fourteen women in 1989, the survivors helped begin a gun-control movement that resulted in legislation bringing stronger gun laws to Canada.

This has reduced mortality due to shooting sprees subsequently (Gopnik 1). In the Paris suburb of Nanterre, in 2002, a man killed eight people at a municipal meeting. Gun control became a key issue in the Presidential election that year, and there has been no repeat incident. All of this proves that this is the time to have gun control laws and it is best to have gun control as swiftly as possible. Making it difficult to buy guns is a logical way of reducing the number of people killed by guns.

Ethics and Guns

Ethically speaking, guns are tools. Some guns are suited for hunting purposes. People who buy these guns, therefore, have a predisposition to hunt, and the fulfillment of having the weapon is realized when the owner gets to hunt down a deer (Wallace 1). Other guns are designed for one major purpose only: the destruction of human beings. People who buy these guns are likely to have thoughts about using them to kill humans, even though it may be under the pretext of self-defense.

Jonathan Wallace says that some gun owners “secretly hope that life will put them in a situation where they can use their weapon for its intended purpose; and a much smaller number has actually sought these circumstances, as did the man in Los Angeles who picked a fight with some graffiti artists, then shot one” (Wallace 1). He further says that an unused handgun, kept for contingencies, is an unrealized potentiality. As humans, there is a basic tendency to use the tools they own and this implies, “the complete fulfillment of the handgun involves the killing of another human being” (Wallace 1). This underlines the need for gun control.

Point of Disagreement: Constitutional Interpretation

The Second Amendment in the Constitution is often cited as a major reason for allowing common citizens to have guns. According to the Second Amendment, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Recently in 2002, this line was interpreted by the Justice Dept., under Attorney General John Ashcroft, as broadly supporting the rights of individuals to possess and bear firearms.

The Supreme Court in June 2008 has upheld this interpretation. But the original context is forgotten here. In its original context, since the late 1930s federal judicial and law enforcement officials have held that this refers to the right to maintain a state militia and not to the individual’s right to have guns. The text of the Second Amendment begins with a reference to militias making it clear that the freedom guaranteed by the amendment is only a collective one. This view is supported by historians as well (Schwartz 1). Hence it is not right to cite the Second Amendment of the Constitution to permit citizens to have guns.

Point of Disagreement: Guns and Self-Defense

One of the major arguments used by gun rights supporters is that guns are used mainly for self-defense purposes. This argument is unacceptable in light of the following facts. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).

This suggests that most of the time, guns inflict injuries on the owners and their family members. Tomislav Kovandzic and Thomas Marvell examined right to carry laws in Florida and found that they have little effect on local crime (Siegel 51). Research shows that defensive gun use works only sometimes and only for some people. Having a gun in a violent crisis situation can actually lead to negative outcomes than any other kind of weapon (Siegel 51) as indicated by the above statistics.

Point of Disagreement: Guns and Homicides

The criminal use of guns causes great public concern. Gun rights activists argue that restriction in the availability of firearms would only increase the number of violent crimes as people unable to defend themselves would die and people with the intent of killing would kill anyway with any other weapon. In murder trials, the killer’s motivation and state of mind are explored thoroughly, while the type of weapon is often treated as an incidental detail.

This makes the gun rights activists argue that it is the people who wield guns for crimes, who need to be treated psychiatrically or legally, and there is no point in banning guns. Yet there is compelling evidence that the type of weapon matters a lot in determining whether the victim lives or dies. Guns can be and used easily and are more fatal compared to other weapons. When well-protected people are murdered it is almost always with a gun; over 90 percent of lethal attacks on law enforcement officers are with firearms, and all murdered presidents have been shot (Wilson and Petersilia 273).

When lone assailants set out to kill as many people as they can in a commuter train or schoolyard, the only readily available weapon that will do the job is a gun. Wilson and Petersilia (278) say it best: “The fact that the United States is such a violent country does not have much to do with guns; the fact that our violent crimes so deadly have much to do with guns”.

Conclusion

The mad shooting sprees and gun crimes have to stop. There is no doubt about that. But a few laws banning guns cannot totally eradicate gun crimes. Gun control measures should exist at all levels: federal, state, local, and individual for gun crimes to be effectively reduced. The Federal Government is best positioned to make guns more valuable and harder to obtain while insulating the states from one anothers’ supply of guns.

More can be done at the federal level to reduce gun crimes: raise taxes on guns making them too expensive to be easily bought; reduce the number of federally licensed gun dealers by raising the license fee; make all gun transfers to pass through licensed dealers; take action against gun-running operations; have an integrated approach towards gun control among various state and federal law enforcement agencies, and have stringent safety requirements in new guns. As most people claim they need a gun for self-protection purposes, community policing may be introduced at the local level to ensure the safety of residential areas.

Three things can be achieved locally at the municipal level: reducing gun carrying by offenders on city streets, reducing youth access to and use of all kinds of weapons, and keeping guns out of places that have records of violent conflicts such as rowdy bars, homes where domestic violence often occurs, or other community “hot spots”. On a personal level, individuals should be encouraged to take an active interest in reducing gun crimes and make responsible choices regarding gun ownership and control. Gun control taken on all levels will definitely reduce crime and violence in America.

Works Cited

APN (Asian Political News) (2007). 6TH LD: 32 killed in shooting spree at Virginia Tech campus. Web.

Arbetter, Lisa (1994). A Call for Gun Control. Security Management. Volume 38. Issue: 2. Page Number 11.

Church, J. George (1989). The Other Arms Race. Time Magazine. Web.

DLPF (David and Lucile Packard Foundation) (2002). Children, Youth, and Gun Violence. The Future of Children. Volume 12 – Number 2. Web.

Gopnik, Adam (2007). Shootings. The New Yorker. Web.

Gottlieb, P. Jason (2008). A Case for Gun Control. Web.

Greenhouse, Linda (2008). Justices, Ruling 5-4, Endorse Personal Right to Own Gun. The New York Times. Web.

Kaplan, M.S. & Geling, O. (1998). Firearm Suicides and Homicides in the United States: Regional Variations and Patterns of Gun Ownership. Social Science and Medicine. Volume 45. Pages 1227-1233.

Schwartz, Emma (2008). A Key Case on Gun Control. U. S. News. Web.

Siegel, J. Larry (2005). Criminology. Thomson Wadsworth Publication.

UU (University of Utah) (2008). Statistics, Gun Control Issues and Safety. Web.

Wallace, Jonathan (2008). The Ethics of Guns. Web.

Wilson, Q. James and Petersilia, Joan (1995). Crime. ICS Press. San Francisco.

Xinhua (2008). Full text of Human Rights Record of United States in 2007. Web.

The fundamental authority for federal regulation of business is the Constitution of the United States and most of the economic powers exercised by the federal government are contained in the commerce clause, Article I. Section 8. The clause is aimed at preventing states from establishing laws and regulations that would interfere with trade and commerce among the states, and to this purpose the constitution expressly delegated to the national government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution expressly permits Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states and with the Indian tribes”.

This clause has had a greater impact on business than any other provision in the Constitution. For some time, the commerce power was interpreted as being limited to interstate commerce and not to intrastate commerce. In 1824, however, in Gibbons v. Ogden, the U.S. Supreme Court held that commerce within a state could also be regulated by the national government as long as the commerce substantially affected commerce involving more than one state (Miller and Jentz, 2005).

As the nation grew, the commerce clause became a vehicle for the additional expansion of the national government’s regulatory powers. The Constitution’s commerce clause as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court means, in effect, that states cannot regulate interstate commerce and only the national government can. This is the dormant commerce clause. If a court finds that a state law places too great a burden on interstate commerce, the law will be deemed unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the dormant commerce clause (Miller and Jentz, 2005).

There are other powers in Article I, Section 8, that also provide a base for the exercise of federal power over business. Included, for example, is the power to provide for “the general welfare of the United States” to levy and collect taxes, to provide for the common defense, to borrow money to establish bankruptcy laws, to promote science and useful arts by granting patents and exclusive rights over writings and discoveries and “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

The federal government’s ability to exercise these powers to regulate business depends on the interpretation of them by the Supreme Court. As a result of liberal interpretations by the Court, the federal government today is able to impose on business just about any regulation that can be passed through congressional lawmaking machinery.

All federal regulation originates in an act of Congress and regulation has been defined as “any attempt by the government to control the behavior of citizens, corporations or sub governments (Steiner and Steiner, 2005). Proposals for laws are called bills and they are placed before the Congress for approval. When a bill is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President its provision becomes law. The responsibility of creating specific regulations lies with the appropriate regulatory agencies that implement the provisions of the Bill.

The Federal Reserve Board, for example, has complete authority to set interest rates. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has authority to determine what is and what is not fair advertising. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can set standards that limit polluting discharges in air, water and on land. There are some legislation with specific instructions to agencies. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 charge the EPA with establishing standards for 188 hazardous air pollutants (Steiner and Steiner, 2005).

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 requires that each manufacturing facility that uses one or more of 329 listed chemicals must prepare an annual report. These examples show that the great bulk of federal regulation today is created and administered in regulatory agencies based on broad grants of authority found in statues over the years (Steiner and Steiner, 2005).

The role of the Constitution in business regulation has also depended on a large extent on the evolution of Supreme Court decisions concerning Constitutional regulatory powers. For the first 150 years, the Court took two major paths in the context of legal authority over business: On one hand, it protected business from government regulations, both federal and states and on the other hand, it opened the door for new regulations.

Today at least theoretically, the power over commerce authorizes the national government to regulate every commercial enterprise in the United States and Federal legislation governs virtually every major activity conducted by businesses – from hiring and firing decisions to workplace safety, competitive practices and financing (Miller and Jentz, 2005). In the last decade or so, the Supreme Court has begun to curb the national government’s regulatory authority under the commerce clause.

According to a news article by BBC, recently, in June 2008, the ban on handguns in Washington DC has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the justices upheld a lower court ruling striking down the ban. They said individuals had a right to keep handguns for lawful purposes. The latest ruling says that the constitution “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”.

BBC’s Justin Webb in Washington says the ruling is of profound importance, as it enshrines for the first time the individual right to own guns and limits efforts to reduce their role in American life. Since 1976, the private possession of handguns had been prohibited in the nation’s capital, while rifles and shotguns had been required to be locked away or dismantled. The DC city council argued that the ban was needed to help keep violence and murder rates down. But the measure was challenged by a security guard, Dick Heller, who argued he had a constitutional right to have one at home.

This set off a constitutional debate on whether the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, protects an individual’s right to possess guns, or simply a collective right for an armed militia. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. This article shows how the Constitutional right affects the business of dealing in handguns and how the legal system has been used with respect to recognizing or protecting that right.

Bibliography

BBC (2008). US Court Overturns DC Handgun Ban. BBC News. Web.

Miller, LeRoy Roger and Jentz, A. Gaylord (2005), Business Law Today. Thomson West Publishers.

Steiner, A. George and Steiner, F. John (2005). Business, Government and Society. McGraw-Hill Professional.

Introduction

Informal social control denominates customs, traditions, norms, and other social values inherited by the individual. It is exercised by a society without explicitly stating these rules and is expressed through customs, norms, and mores.

Informal sanctions may include radical, sarcasm, criticism, disapproval, and community policing. Community policing or neighborhood policing is a policing strategy and philosophy based on the notion that community interaction and support can help control crime, with community members helping to identify suspects and bring problems to the attention of the police and this can be a good idea to the society since it’s the people in that society who actually identify these suspects since they stay with them and know them and hence effectively help to reduce crime in our societies.

With community policing, the police and the police department are involved as members of the community. Cities and countries that subscribe to this philosophy tend to do much more community work than traditional police departments. This often includes having more police officers that walk the beat as opposed to driving around in police cars. The basic idea is to create bonds of trust and reliance between the police and the republic. The approach requires officers to be open-minded, unbiased, and sensitive to the concerns and problems of the community they are operating in also known as the new policing paradigm.

Even if officers do not agree with a complainant’s viewpoint, they should try to listen and understand the problem. Police should display empathy and compassion with sincerity, not in a rehearsed way. They must also develop skills in planning, problem-solving, organizational, interpersonal communication, and perhaps most importantly critical thinking (United States National Criminal Justice Reference Service 1990)

As the heart of police transition to community policing is the question. How do the police identify and deliver high-quality service to the community? In the past, the delivery of police service was accomplished in a reactive and unscientific manner, with little attention given to proactive policing. Today, the efficient delivery of police services requires a systematic process to assess the needs of the community they are operating in; translate those needs into police services and programs that can be efficiently and effectively delivered to the community. In this way, the police are becoming more sensitive to the needs of the community. They also have a better understanding of how their work affects the social environment (United States National Criminal Justice Reference Service 1990)

Criminal justice system

Criminal justice is the system of, practices and organizations used by the federal state, and local governments directed at maintaining social control and order in societies deter and controlling crimes, and sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties. The primary agencies charged with responsibilities are law enforcements that are the police and the prosecutors, courts, defense attorneys, and local jails and prisons, which administer the procedures for, arrest, judging, adjudication, and punishment of those found guilty. When processing the accused through the criminal justi8ce system, the government must keep within the framework of laws and protect individuals’ rights. (Fielding 2005)

The pursuit of criminal justice is like all forms of justice, fairness, or process especially the pursuit of an ideal. Throughout history, criminal justice has taken on many different forms, which often reflect the cultural mores of society.

In the United States, criminal justice policy has been guided by the 1967 president’s commission on law enforcement and administration of justice, which issued a groundbreaking report on the challenge of crime in a free society. This report made more than 200 recommendations as part of a comprehensive approach towards the prevention and fighting of crime. The president’s commission defined the criminal justice system as the means for a society to enforce the standards of conduct necessary to protect individuals and the community (Fielding 2005)

Society

A society is a grouping of individuals, which is characterized by common interests and may have distinctive culture and norms thus the meaning of society is closely related to what is considered to be social. Implicit in the meaning of society is that its members may share some mutual concern or interest, a common objective or a common objective. It is then that in these societies that order must be maintained in order for the community to live in peace and hence need of the police for this order to prevail

Social orders in these societies must prevail and social order is a relatively stable system of institutions, the pattern of interactions and customs, capable of continually reproducing at least those conditions essential for its own existence. (Lesnki, 1974)

An exemption to the idea of values and norms as social orders keepers is deviant behavior. Not everyone in a society abides by a set of personal values or the groups’ norms all the time. For this reason, it is necessary for a society to have authority. In societies, those who hold positions of power and authority are among the upper class (Lesnki, 1974)

Community policing

It is due to the deviation of society’s norms and values that community policing has become an issue in most societies. The vision of policing with the community has five key principles that are service delivery, partnerships, problem-solving, empowerment, and accountability. A central goal of the COPS office is to help law enforcement agencies implement and enhance community policing. It helps promote and support organizational strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and police-community partnerships. In an effort to help discern what community policing is, their interactions with the citizens are central to this philosophy.

Community policing focuses on crime and social disorder through the delivery of police services that include aspects of traditional law enforcement swell as preventing, problem-solving, community engagement, and partnership. As a result, community policing requires the police and the community to join together as partners as a cause of both identifying and effectively addressing these issues. (David, 2004)

Effects of community policing

Community policing is promising because it builds working relationships with citizens resulting in improved delivery of police service, improved police/community relations, and natural resolution of identifiable problems. They can better address problems and concerns of the community because it is a proactive, decentralized approach with a strong commitment to crime prevention, reducing crime, disorde3r, and fear of crime.

By involving the same officer in the same community on a long-term basis, it leads to higher police visibility and long-term relationship between officers and the community, which develop trust and cooperation among residents. It also requires a different police attitude. The effects of community policing are, the initial increase in reported crimes, reduce fear of crime, increased citizen confidence and sense of empowerment, increased job satisfaction for police, and decrease in targeted crimes. (Meesig, 2006)

Community policing contributes to improving the overall racial climate in both obvious and subtle ways. A comparison of traditional policing and community policing shows that community policing changes the fundamental nature of the relationship between people and their police to one of mutual respect and trust. Traditional policing focuses on reducing crime by arresting the bad guys. Not only does this approach risk demonizing everyone who lives in high crime neighborhoods, but it also requires relying on a rapid response which makes it virtually impossible for the police to avoid been strangers to the community.

This model suffers from reducing the law of law-abiding citizens in the community primarily to that of passive stander (Meesig, 2006) Community policing takes a different approach to crime, drugs, and disorder, one that can augment and enhance traditional tactics such as rapid response and undercover operations. It empowers average citizens by enlisting them as partners with the police in efforts to make their communities better and safer places in which to live and work.

Research conducted on the flint foot patrol experiment of the late 1070s a precursor of today’s community policing showed a dramatic improvement in the race relations between foot patrol officers and minorities. The police often assume that people worry most about the serious index crimes of murder, rape, and robbery, only to find that people in the community care more about a totally different list of concerns. It is not that people fail to grasp the horror of serious crimes. Rather it is that they recognize that their individual risk of falling victims to those crimes is relatively small compared to the problems of disorder and low level of crime. (Meesig, 2006)

Community policing as a reform in police philosophy

Community crime prevention and community policing are the main reforms in crime prevention strategies, developed during the last years. Both have implications for police management and the policy of policing. While the reform itself is targeted towards crime and public order, emphasizes police-community relations and local crime analysis and environmental analysis, the background analysis is based on a distinct set of values within the police force and the understanding, that crime prevention is a task for all members of a community. Community policing is a comprehensive approach suggesting a multicausal view of crime and a multidimensional approach to crime prevention.

Problem-oriented policing, team policing and finally, community policing are terms reflecting the changes in the philosophy of policing during the last years. This change is a tremendous challenge for the internal system of the police, because the main structures of leadership, as the structure and the form of the organization have to be changed. This includes attitudinal, organizational, and sub-cultural changes. The keywords are participation, decentralization, motivation in working together as a community to solve problems of crime, and related social ills. (Fielding 2005)

Theory of community policing

It is obvious we can no longer adhere to traditional forms of police work. Over the last years, there has been a reappraisal of policing philosophy and the role of the police, which was more or less intensive or radical. Drivers of greater efficiency, ideas like new public management, and changes in workplace philosophies forced the police in most of the western demography’s to get away with the old-fashioned militaristic approach of policing.

At least since the 1980s, we had to learn that police do not and cannot effectively control crime or criminal structures and dangerous situations and that prevention through repression is rather ineffective. As a result, forces began to devise plans to evaluate police performance through local crime surveys and through police activity surveys with the view of improving the quality of policing at the local level

In the early 1980s, the outlines of a new direction for policing know community policing began to emerge and take root throughout the United States and many other countries. Since then, interest in community policing has grown rapidly and police in many jurisdictions have developed and implemented some form of community policing. Police operations were more visible, increasing police accountability to the public; operations were decentralized to meet the needs of various neighborhoods and constituencies.

Citizens were encouraged to take more initiative in preventing crimes and become partners with the police, improving relations between the police and the public. Underpinning the theory of community policing is a belief that the regular exchange of information between residents and law enforcement personnel is essential to effective policing. Reflecting this, the proposal for the Mountain View project promised the establishment of a community advisory board. As the project evolved, the actual push to form a board came initially from the APD officers involved. The board proposed the discussion on the possible effects of the welfare cuts on the Mountain View community and the implications for policing. (Gaeson, 1989)

Disadvantages of community policing

Despite the great effort and good intentions, not all community police projects will succeed and hence community policing has some disadvantages it requires extensive planning and preparation by the police agency. A specific plan must be developed. Short and long-term plans must be established and resources must be assigned. It requires extensive training of police officers. Officers assigned to an interface and work with citizens group must play many roles. They should be trained in supervision principles; they must be trained to work with the community in an s partnership role. They must know supervision principles, the law, social forces, and the nature of the effects of crime. Their knowledge must range from criminology to social work. If community policing fails the community will fault the police agency. (Gaeson, 1989)

Advantages of community policing

Despite the view disadvantages of community policing, it has benefits, which include, it gets citizens involved in their own security, and police organizations cannot fully protect the citizens. Citizens must get involved in protecting themselves by a joint effort with the police. It also establishes a corporation in a community in that when the community becomes involved in addressing common problems, a spirit of unity is created.

Corporations and common purposes are created and this leads to corporative efforts in other non-law enforcements issues e.g. neighborhood cleanups, building parks and recreational areas, and helping the elderly in quality of life efforts. Greater results can be obtained with the same police agency resources. With the assistance of the community in terms of money, reporting procedures and information, police efforts are better focused (Gaeson, 1989)

Conclusion

It is due to the deviation of society’s norms and values that community policing has become an issue in most societies. The vision of policing with the community is to ensure that social orders in these societies prevail and hence as a result, people are in a position to live in peace and harmony. In order for community policing to succeed, it requires total support from the following, police i.e. the police organization must commit the appropriate resources to this program. Small and large businesses benefit a lot from community policing hence need to support them by leading monitory and other resource support and hence greater results can be achieved with the same police agency resources with the assistance of the community in terms of money, reporting procedures and information to the police agency.

Reference

David, A. (2004). The effects of community policing on complaints against officers. Springer Netherlands.

Fielding (2005). Howard journal of criminal justice, Volume 44, Number 5.Blackwell publishing.

Gaeson, S (1989). Designing out crime: Crime prevention through environmental design. Australian institute of criminology.

Lesnki, G. (1974). Human societies: An introduction to Macrosociology; New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Linda, R (1999). Leadership effectiveness in community policing, Bristol, Indiana: Wyndham Hall Press.

Meesig, R (2006). The effects of community policing and technology on index crime clearance rates. Royal York, Toronto.

United States National Criminal Justice Reference Service (1990). Community Policing. United States, National Institute of Justice. Washington D.C.

Decriminalization of marijuana is legalizing the use of marijuana by the governing authority within stipulated laws. Legalizing Marijuana has many advantages to a State or Nation as long as it is done in a controlled manner. When backed up with relevant campaigns spelling out the short-term and long-term effects on someone’s health, it leads to reduced negative impacts compared to the current situation where many States still criminalizing the use of non-medical marijuana.

Underground illegal sale and use of Marijuana is associated with drugs kings and organized gangs. The profits realized from illegal sales and marijuana trafficking are used in supporting organized crimes and street gangs. This has resulted in increased crime rate as gangs can easily get funding to carry out crimes. Legalizing and regulating cultivation, sale and use of marijuana will go a long way in reducing the financial gains that underground gangs earn from trafficking and sales of marijuana. This will help to put criminals out of business.

Those people who use marijuana come into contact with people who sell and use other illegal drugs in the backstreets and underground avenues as they try to hide from law enforcement officers. While it might seem that marijuana may make a person switch to use other hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, it is by criminalizing marijuana that may make a person switch to other drugs. By decriminalizing marijuana, users can comfortably take marijuana in safe secure place knowing that they won’t be arrested. This helps in reducing possible abuse of other drugs.

By decriminalizing Marijuana and allowing regulated cultivation and sale of marijuana, a lot of revenue will be generated from marijuana sale taxation. Today, such revenues end up in the pockets of individuals. If the governing authority could collect the money in form of tax, the revenues would be used in another avenue of economies like health and infrastructures development.

Currently, the United States government spend over $ 13 billion dollars in enforcing marijuana-related laws and court process. A further $ 17 billion is used in the correction facilities where marijuana-related offenders are locked up. By decriminalizing marijuana, the federal government will save a lot of money. This added to the money gained from taxation of marijuana just like tobacco and alcohol is taxed would save the federal government over 40 Billion annually. This money can greatly boost the United States’ economy.

Despite the fact that Marijuana cultivation, sale and use is illegal in most states, it is important to know that out of 52 states, 12 states cultivate marijuana as the main cash crop. In over 30 states, Marijuana cultivation is among the three main cash crops. The value of Marijuana production in United States currently stands at $36.4 billion. This value is more than the value of wheat combined with the value of corn produced annually. Faced with such facts, it is easy to note that the Federal government is in denial. It is the high time that legislation is put in place to decriminalize the cultivation, sale and usage of marijuana and leap all the benefits which are going in the wrong hands.

In California, Alaska, New York, North Carolina and Colorado where marijuana has been decriminalized, it is amazing that there is no evidence whatsoever that more people are into drug abuse or increase in crime as the opponents of decriminalization want everyone to believe. In these states, it is impossible to tell who takes marijuana or who doesn’t as there is no marked behavior change of those who take marijuana. As a result of decriminalization of marijuana in 2001, the State of California saved over $180 million in that year alone as a result of having fewer offenders related to drug usage in prison.

Opponents of decriminalization of Marijuana argue that marijuana destroys the health of a person and leads to family break-up than the case with those who take alcohol. While some elements of this notation might be true especially when marijuana is abused, such view when taken at face value can be very misleading and biased. It is a known fact that uncontrolled use of alcohol has more lethal effects to a person health, the family unit and the moral life of a person than controlled use of marijuana.

Decriminalization of Marijuana would free substantial amount of resources used by law enforcement in fight against marijuana. By so doing, law enforcement resources can be focused on fighting and preventing other serious crimes like terrorism and organized crimes leading to safer cities.

Decriminalization helps in decongestion of prisons. A huge number of offenders in States prison have been convicted on marijuana-related charges like usage, sale and cultivation of marijuana. By decriminalizing the cultivation, usage and sale of marijuana prison would be decongested leaving only those convicted of serious crimes.

Decriminalization of Marijuana comes at a price. It is important to come up with policy spelling out how the usage, sale and cultivation will be done within the law. Decriminalizing marijuana has to be backed up with necessary campaigns to sensitize the public on the risks associated with use of marijuana. The federal government must take full control of all the outlets dealing with sale of Marijuana. This way, it will be possible to ensure that only persons over the age of 18 or 21, depending with the policy, can have access to Marijuana.

Users must be compelled to take marijuana responsibly in a secure environment, and be able to lead a normal life in raising families, pursuing life careers and participating in civic duties. Guideline similar to those in place for alcohol should be established to set prudent boundaries for Marijuana use.

Decriminalizing marijuana will be a success to the United States in a bid to fight organized crime and underground drug lords as the federal government will take full control of cultivation, sale and usage. It will also earn the Government a lot of revenues in form of tax from sale of marijuana. Substantial amount of resources will be put in fighting other crimes by the law enforcement authority as they will no longer need to direct much attention in fighting marijuana usage. Decriminalizing marijuana will also play an important role in decongesting state prisons.

Introduction

This paper seeks to differentiate one form of business organization from the others using at least six given characteristics. The distinctions will be expounded with brief discussion of advantages and advantages of each form of organization.

Analysis and Discussion

The forms of organizations, characteristics, advantages and disadvantages

The following are the forms of business organizations and the characteristics of each and a brief discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Sole proprietorship

The liability of the owner is unlimited — that is creditors can go after the personal assets of the owner if business assets are not enough to pay liabilities in case of insolvency. As to income tax, the owner is liable for self-employment tax for one’s income from the business but that the business entity is not liable for a separate income tax (AllBusiness.com, 2006).

As to longevity of the organization, the company may exist indefinitely but it would be at the advantage of the owner to file for bankruptcy if he or she becomes unable to pay debts out his or assets. As to control, the owner will have the sole power to do what he or she wants to do and the same may not be granted to the others.

As to profit retention, the owner can keep alone the profits since he or she has nothing to share with the same. This would definitely increase his return on investment because the owner could always reinvest profits any time.

Since the law on business organization of sole proprietorship is governed by state laws, the owner will have to adjust to the laws of the state where the business plans to expand to or operate. The entity would also need to have a separate registration and permits requirements from another state and be liable for any state taxes if any. There is however no need to have a separate juridical entity since whether there is expansion or not, the business organization and the owner are considered one legal person.

It advantages therefore may be viewed in comparison with general partnership, limited partnership in the case of general partners and C-corporation where the sole proprietor is sure controlling of the organization while enjoying simplicity of decision-making (Canada Business Network, 2008). In terms of taxation, it is better than C-corporation since the latter is taxed both from the entity level and the distributed profits to owners in the form of dividends. Its disadvantages compared to other forms include the unlimited liability of the owners where personal assets could be pursued by creditors.

General partnership

As to liability, the owners who are all general partners are liable beyond their capital distribution in case of insolvency of the partnership. As to income taxes, business partnerships are considered as flow-through entities for purposes of US Federal income tax under United States Code (Title 26, United States Code, n.d.). This implies that the entities are not liable to pay income taxes but their owners are liable on the share each from profits of the partnership.

As to longevity, general partnership may be dissolved in case of death or insolvency of any of the partners; hence their continuity could be limited. Remaining partners may however continue the business after dissolution under a new arrangement.

In terms of control, the general partners have voting and influencing power in terms of their interest in the partnership, thus the greater the interest, the greater the influence in the management and control of the business. As to profit retention, the partners normally have included as part of the partnership agreement how to divide their profits which may be based on their capital contribution or any profit sharing arrangement that they may agree into.

Partnerships are regulated by different states in the US hence a partnership planning to expand into another state must comply with the legal requirements of those other states. Since there is already a registered business name, the partners may choose the same registered business name in another state. A separate legal entity is not created in case of expansion as there would be the same owners.

Its advantages over that of sole proprietorship include the chance of raising bigger capital while its disadvantage compared to a corporation is the unlimited liability of owners or partners compared to stockholders.

Limited partnership

As to liability, the general partners have unlimited liability but the limited partners have limited liability up to their capital contribution. As income taxes, the partners are liable as in the case of general partnership where the entity is not taxable but the share of partners in the profits is subject to income tax. As to longevity, the life of the limited partnership may be dissolved also under the same grounds as general partnership and in addition, the partners’ failure to comply with certain requirements of the law.

The control of the business is normally given to the general partners who are in charged of the management of the business and who assume the greater risks in the organization as compared to limited partners. These limited partners are entitled to major decisions of the organization like the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the organization. As to profit retention, the partners have made it part of their agreement how to divide the profits among themselves as in general partnership.

The location of the business on the business to other states in case of expansion will also be like the general partnership. The partners may choose the same registered business name in another state and a separate legal entity will not be formed since it will have the same owners.

Its advantages over that of sole proprietorship include the better source of capital from more owners while its disadvantage compared to a sole proprietorship is the lack of control in the management to limited partners.

C-corporation

As to liability, the owners or stockholders have limited liability to the extent of the amount of their capital contribution to the organization. As to income taxes, the C-corporation is subject to corporate income tax and in addition, the dividends distributed to the stockholders as share in the profits is also subject to tax. Thus in this form of organization, there is double taxation.

As to longevity of the organization, C-corporation has normally a fixed life under the law on corporation but the same is subject to renewal for another fixed term. The control of management is determined by those who hold a majority of the shares in the corporation since they would use their holding to elect the board of directors that manages the corporation day to day affairs. As to profit retention, the corporation’s board of directors determines whether there is basis to distribute dividends or whether there are good investment opportunities that would produce rates of return higher than its present cost of capital.

As to location, the corporation can also expand to other states without creating any new entity but the expanding corporation must comply with what the corporate law requires by the host state. Some corporation laws of other states may impose state taxes; hence the corporation must be ready to comply with the same.

The advantages of C-corporation over that sole proprietorship and general partnership include the limited liability of stockholders. It disadvantages compared to sole proprietorship is the uncertainty of gaining control if one is just a minority stockholder.

S-corporation

As to liability, the owner or owners have also limited liability since their liability is limited to capital contribution. As to income tax, the S-corporation is not subject to corporate incomes tax but only the share of owners in the corporation that would be subject to tax, hence there is no double taxation. As to longevity, the S-corporation has normally a fixed life subject to renewal.

The control operates as that of C-corporation where the majority of owners who hold the greater interest will normally have control of the S-corporation. As to profit retention, the portion of profits that would be distributed to shareholders would depend on what is decided by the majority of the shareholders. The implication of moving or expansion is the same at that of C-corporation where there is no need to create separate legal entity.

It advantages over that of sole proprietorship and general partnership is the limited liability of shareholders (Fishman, 2008). It disadvantages compared with C-corporation include the limited number of shareholders.

Limited liability company (LLC)

As to liability, all the owners all have limited liability. The limited liability may be enjoyed in sole proprietorship, a partnership or corporation which may be determined upon choice by the applicant. Thus the liability of the owners would depend on the kind of organization elected for the LLC (Internal Revenue Service, 2008).

In relation to choice made, the kind of income tax will also depend on the choice made. If C-corporation is chosen, the there will be double taxation but sole proprietorship, S-corporation of partnership is chosen, tax will only be imposed on the share of the owner in the profits.

As to longevity of the organization, the same will also depend on the choice made if it is sole proprietorship, partnership or corporation. As discussed earlier, the life of a sole proprietorship is indefinite as that of partnership but that of corporation has fixed life.

The control of the business will also depend on the choice made which could sole proprietorship, partnership or a corporation (Internal Revenue Service, 2008). As to profit retention, the share of profits with others will also depend upon the choice made and the implication must be the same as discussed for each particular type. Even the effects of the possible expansion of the business to other states will be governed by the consequences of choice of organization made whether sole proprietorship, partnership or a corporation.

It advantages compared to a limited partnership include the limited liability of all owners. Its disadvantages assuming the chosen LLC is partnership include the difficulty of raising capital compared to S-corporation or C-corporation.

Memorandum analyzing the findings

Each type of business organization has its own advantages and disadvantages and the applicability to one person or persons intending to adopt the most appropriate type would depend on the circumstances of the person or owner or owners including the nature of the business, the risks the owners are wanting to minimize and, the financial requirements needed and other business objectives that the owners wanted to realize.

After reading given facts of the case and relating same with characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of each form of business organization, the most suitable form of organization to be recommended to the owner is S-corporation. Case facts provide that the owner is concerned about possible liabilities in case of accident provided by sub-contractors and employees. The said conditions prioritize the need to be protected from liabilities. Among the form S-corporation is the most suitable. The owner cannot choose to become a limited partner of limited partnership just to limit his or her liability because limited partners cannot manage the business and would mean lose of control. The owner is also not ready to put up a C-corporation because of the possibility of losing also the chance to control the majority of the board of directors. Although it is possible to choose S-corporation and making it at the same as a limited liability company (LLC), the owner may be restricted unnecessarily to raise additional capital for expansion.

By adopting S-corporation as a form the owner will also avoid double taxation. Moreover the owner could benefit from the corporate losses being passed on in filing their personal income tax return. In addition, the owner has also the great chance of minimizing self-employment tax and FICA taxes (Harroch, 2006).

Conclusion

After a careful analysis of differences among the different forms of organization in relation to the conditions under which the owner of business presently has, it was found that S-corporation is the most appropriate to adopt. S-corporation basically is combining the flexibility of sole-proprietorship by avoiding double taxation and some of the advantages of a corporation particularly the limit on personal liability and the chance raising bigger capital easier than just remaining separately as sole proprietorships or forming a partnership. Although it has the disadvantages of more regulations and requirements demanded by compared to C-corporation and therefore more cost more as a result, these are offset by greater effect of the advantages to the present condition of owner as manufacturer of a variety of wood moldings, hardwood doors, high-end kitchen cabinets, etc.

References

AllBusiness.com (2006), Advantages and Disadvantages of Sole Proprietorships. 2008. Web.

Canada Business Network (2008) Forms of Business Organization. Web.

Fishman, S. (2008) Working for Yourself: Law & Taxes for Independent Contractors, Freelancers & Consultants, Nolo.

Harroch, R. (2006) Advantages and Disadvantages of C Corporation. 2008. Web.

Internal Revenue Service (2008) Limited Liability Company. Web.

Title 26, United States Code (n.d.), Internal Revenue Code, 2008. Web.

Introduction

There are many types of business organizations. Some of these are the sole proprietorship, general partnership, limited partnership, S Corporation, C Corporation, and Limited Liability Company. They have different characteristics. These characteristics will be an advantage or a disadvantage when compared with another type of business organization. The following paragraphs explain well the intricacies of the different organizational forms.

Body

Business Organization Forms

Differentiate forms of Business Organization.

Sole proprietorship – This is formed by only one person (Eads, 1991).

• Liability: The sole proprietorship has no limit in terms of liability. The owner will be forced to pay his outstanding business liability with the attachment of his business assets, personal assets, and future earnings power of the owner beyond his sole proprietorship business.
• Income taxes: The sole proprietorship owner pays the income tax generated from the business himself being the sole owner.
• Longevity or continuity of the organization: The sole proprietorship owner will decide when he or she will continue or close up the business. This organizational form’s owner has no fixed term limits because the owner of the sole proprietorship business can continue his or her business as long as he or she wants to without.
• Control: The owner of the business has ultimate control over important decisions. The owner of this type of business organization does not have to give a single percent of control to other persons.
• Profit retention: The owner of the sole proprietorship business owner does not give a single portion of the business profits to anyone. He receives the entire profits of the business entirely.
• Location: The owner of the sole proprietorship business has to apply for a new business permit and comply with all the business document requirements in each state he or she plans to set up.
• Convenience or burden: The sole proprietorship has the least cost and requirements in terms of complying with reporting, meeting, and other regulatory requirements. For, the sole proprietorship does not have to sign a partnership agreement with an outside person.

General partnership

This is formed by two or more persons as general partners. The partners contribute their money, property, or industry into a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves using a pre-agreed profit and loss sharing ratio. Each of the general partners is limited to their pre-agreed percentage in terms of liability. Each of the general partners is required to pay their percentage share of the company’s liabilities from their share of business assets, personal assets, and future earning powers of the general partner behind the general partnership business based on. This sharing of partnership liability is set forth in the pre-agreed partnership agreement.

Liability

The general partner has no limit in terms of liability. The owner will be forced to pay his outstanding business liability with the attachment of his business assets, personal assets, and future earnings power of the owner beyond his sole proprietorship business.

Income taxes

What are the features of each business entity that affect the amount of federal, state, and local income taxes paid by the business and/or owners?

The partnership itself will not pay taxes. Instead, the net income of the general partnership will ‘flow through’ to the individual partners. The individual partners will pay the taxes as part of their individual income tax returns.

Longevity or continuity of the organization

What features of each form relate to the forced dissolution of the business organization?

The partnership is dissolved if one of the partners dies, retires, or resigns. A new partnership has to be formed each time a death, retirement, or resignation of one of the partners.

Control

Who has ultimate control over important decisions? How much control does the owner have to grant to others?

Each of the partners has control over important business decisions based on a pre-arranged partnership agreement. Each of the partners grants control to the other partners based on a pre-arranged partnership agreement.

Profit retention

What portion of the profits does the owner have to give up because they have to be shared with others? How does this affect the return on investment?

One partner gives up a portion of the entire partnership profits to the general partners based on a pre-arranged partnership agreement. The return on investment of each partner is varied because the profits are distributed based on a pre-agreed partnership agreement. For example, partner A will get 10 percent of the entire net profits even though his investment is twenty percent of the entire partnership capital of 20,000.

His return of investment is arrived at by dividing his net income partnership share of $2,000 by his partnership investment. His partnership investment is $4,000. The return on investment is 50% arrived at by dividing $2,000 net income partnership share by the investment of $4,000.

Location

What are the implications for moving or expanding the business into a different state? Will a separate legal entity have to be created or new documents filed in the new state? Are there advantages or disadvantages regarding how state taxes will be assessed?

Convenience or burden

There are no additional requirements or extra workload placed on the general partnership to comply with all reporting, meetings, and other regulatory requirements. A partnership can be formed by mere oral agreement. However, it is preferable to sign a written partnership agreement to avoid misunderstandings between the partners in the future.

Also, the General Partnership must file with the secretary of state of each state in the United States submitting their Articles of Partnership which varies from one state to another. In addition, the filing fees for filing the Articles of Partnership differ from one state to another.

Limited partnership

– This is formed by two or more persons where one or more general partners and an al partners. The partners contribute their money, property, or industry into a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves using a pre-agreed profit and loss sharing ratio. Each of the general partners is limited to their pre-agreed percentage in terms of liability. Each of the general partners is required to pay their percentage share of the company’s liabilities from their share of business assets, personal assets, and future earning powers of the general partner behind the general partnership business based on. This sharing of partnership liability is set forth in the pre-agreed partnership agreement.

Liability

What are the limits on liability and protection of not only business assets, but personal assets and future earning power of the owner beyond this particular business?

The general partner in a limited partnership has no limit in terms of liability. The general partner will be forced to pay his outstanding business liability with the attachment of his business assets, personal assets, and future earnings power of the owner beyond his limited partnership business. On the other hand, the limited partner is limited to pay the liabilities up to the maximum amount of his or her personal investments. The limited partner is never liable to pay the partnership liabilities from his personal assets and future earning power of the limited power beyond the limited partnership agreement he or she has entered into.

Income taxes

The partnership itself will not pay taxes. Instead, the net income of the general partnership will ‘flow through’ to the individual partners. The individual partners will pay the taxes as part of their individual income tax returns.

Longevity or continuity of the organization

The limited partnership is dissolved if one of the partners dies, retires, or resigns. A new partnership has to be formed each time a death, retirement, or resignation of one of the partners happen.

Control

Only the general partner can have control of the important decisions of the business. The limited partner cannot participate or control the day-to-day business activities. The limited partner only shares in the profits of the business.

Profit retention

The limited partners are entitled to a share of the limiter partnership profits based on a pre-agreed partnership agreement. Generally, the computation of the profit distribution is similar to the general partnership organization above. To reiterate, a limited partner’s return of investment is arrived at by dividing his net income partnership share of $2,000 by his partnership investment. His partnership investment is $4,000. The return on investment is 50% arrived at by dividing $2,000 net income partnership share by the investment of $4,000.

Location

The Limited Partnership must file with the secretary of state of each state in the United States submitting their Articles of Partnership which varies from one state to another. In addition, the filing fees for filing the Articles of Partnership differ from one state to another (http://lawdigest.uslegal.com/limited-partnership/general/5405/).

Convenience or burden

There are no additional requirements or extra workload placed on the Limited partnership to comply with all reporting, meetings, and other regulatory requirements. A partnership can be formed by mere oral agreement. However, it is preferable to sign a written partnership agreement to avoid misunderstandings between the partners in the future(http://lawdigest.uslegal.com/limited-partnership/general/5405/).

C-corporation

Liability

The C Corporation is treated as a corporation under state law. Therefore, the stockholders of the C Corporation have a liability limitation up to the maximum amount of their personal investments. This means that the stockholders of the C Corporation are never liable to pay the Corporation’s liabilities from their personal assets and future earning power of the C Corporation stockholder beyond their investments.

Income taxes

The C Corporation is taxed based under the federal income tax law under Title 26 U.S.C. §11 and also Title 26 §301. One disadvantage of C Corporation is double taxation.

Longevity or continuity of the organization

The S corporation is formed as a corporation. Therefore the corporation will outlive a stockholder who dies, resigns, or retires.

Control

The ultimate control or management of the business is placed on the shoulder of the board of directors. The members of the board of directors are elected by the stockholders of the corporation. There is no limit to the issuance of outstanding shares.

Profit retention

The S corporation shareholders do not receive dividends. The stockholders will receive their share of the profits using his or her number of shares as a percentage of the total number of sales. The shareholder receives a dividend portion of the profits distributed by the corporation. If he owns ten percent shares of stocks, then he received only ten percent of the total dividend value of the total company net profits.

Location

The C Corporation must file with the secretary of state of each state in the United States submitting their Articles of Incorporation which varies from one state to another. In addition, the filing fees for filing the Articles of Incorporation differ from one state to another.

Convenience or burden

The C Corporation must file the Article of Incorporation and bylaws. It is composed of shareholders and directors. It also issues shares of stocks. This is the standard corporation. The C Corporation must file its own income tax return and pay the corporate income taxes. The C Corporation can issue two classes of stocks.

S-corporation (“S Corporation Reform Bill Introduced in Senate”)

Liability

The S corporation is treated as a corporation under state law. Therefore, the stockholders of the S corporation have a liability limitation up to the maximum amount of their personal investments. This means that the stockholders of the S Corporation are never liable to pay the partnership liabilities from their personal assets and future earning power of the S Corporation stockholder beyond their investments.

Income taxes

The net income of the business operation of the S corporation is tax-exempt under the Federal Income Tax Law. However, there are some exceptions to this general rule. The tax is imposed on the S corporation’s stockholders individually. Meaning, the stockholders have to file an income tax return separately as individuals. In terms of income tax computation, they are taxed under the partnership method because the S Corporation, itself, does not pay any taxes.

Longevity or continuity of the organization

The S corporation is formed as a corporation. Therefore the corporation will outlive a stockholder who dies, resigns, or retires.

Control

The ultimate control or management of the business is placed on the shoulder of the board of directors. The members of the board of directors are elected by the stockholders of the corporation. The S corporation is indirectly controlled by a maximum of one hundred stockholders and having one class of stock. An S corporation must either be a U.S. domestic corporation. An S corporation can also be a limited liability company. There is a limit to the issuance of shares of stocks.

Profit retention

The S corporation shareholders do not receive dividends. The stockholders will receive their share of the profits using his or her number of shares as a percentage of the total number of sales. The shareholder receives a dividend portion of the profits distributed by the corporation. If he owns ten percent shares of stocks, then he received only ten percent of the total dividend value of the total company net profits.

Location

The S Corporation must file with the secretary of state of each state in the United States submitting their Articles of Incorporation which varies from one state to another. In addition, the filing fees for filing the Articles of Incorporation differ from one state to another.

Convenience or burden

The S Corporation should be a domestic corporation. Thus, a Japanese company cannot form an S Corporation in the United States. The S Corporation must have a maximum of 75 shareholders. The S Corporation must file the Article of Incorporation and bylaws. It is composed of shareholders and directors. It also issues shares of stocks. The S corporation does not pay taxes but is passed through to the shareholders of the S corporation. S corporation has only one kind of share of stocks.

Limited liability company

• Liability: The members of the limited liability company have a liability limitation up to the maximum amount of their personal investments. This means that the members of limited partners are never liable to pay the partnership liabilities from their personal assets and future earning power of the owner beyond the investments they have in the limited liability company.
• Income taxes: The limited liability company is taxed similar to a partnership.
• Longevity or continuity of the organization: The S corporation is formed as a corporation. Therefore the corporation will outlive a stockholder who dies, resigns, or retires.
• Control: The members of the limited liability company elect the managers. The managers will control the day-to-day business operations. The owners of the business, also called the members, grant full control of the business to their elected managers. However, the members can remove the managers if they do not live up to the expectations of the members of the limited liability company.
• Profit retention: The profits will be divided based on a pre-agreed plan.
• Location: The limited liability company must file with the secretary of state of each state in the United States submitting their Articles of Organization which varies from one state to another. In addition, the filing fees for filing the Articles of Organization differ from one state to another (http://law.justia.com/newyork/codes/limited-liability-company-law/).
• Convenience or burden: The members of the Limited liability Corporation do not need to meet regularly. They have limited liability in terms of debt. The members will report their profits and losses as part of their individual income tax returns. Non –U.S. citizens can invest in this type of business organization (http://law.justia.com/newyork/codes/limited-liability-company-law/).

Conclusion

Recommendation of Business Organization.

The appropriate recommendation for a specific form of organization that should be used in the given situation here is the C Corporation. This is the most popular of the business organizations today.

There are many reasons why the best justifiable business form for this situation is the C Corporation. First, the five or more persons can invest more capital into the business than a sole proprietorship or a partnership of two or three persons can. Second, there is the ease in generating capital. Prospective investors can easily acquire shares of stocks in any corporation of his or her choosing. Third, is the creditors cannot run after the personal assets of the stockholders for the liabilities of the C Corporation. The stockholders of the C Corporation have a liability limitation equal to the maximum amount of their personal investments. This is what is called piercing the veil of the corporation.

Fourth, the customers and creditors would prefer to deal with the corporation than a sole proprietorship or the other forms of business organization. The reason for this is that the death or resignation of one stockholder or board of directors will not terminate the life of the corporation. On the other hand, the death of a partner cancels the partnership. Another advantage of the C Corporation is that it can issue two types of stock shares. The preferred stockholders will be prioritized in the distribution of dividends. The Common stockholders will receive their dividends only after the preferred shareholders have received their dividends.

References

Auken, H. V. (2002). A Model of Community-Based Venture Capital Formation to Fund Early-Stage Technology-Based Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(4), 287+.

Bowman, S. R. (1996). The Modern Corporation and American Political Thought: Law, Power, and Ideology. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Cocheo, S. (1994). Texas Pioneers “Partnership Banks. ABA Banking Journal, 86(2), 88.

Eads, J. A. (1991). Practice Continuation Agreements; No Sole Practitioner or Small Firm Should Be without One. Journal of Accountancy, 172(4), 50+.

S Corporation Reform Bill Introduced in Senate. (1994). Journal of Accountancy, 177(2), 13+.

Cornell Law. 2008. Web.

Cornell Law. 2008. Web.

S Corporation Law. 2008. Web.

Partnership law. 2008. Web.

C Corporation Law. 2008.

Limited Liability company law, 2008. Web.

Sole Proprietorship Law, 2008. Web.

Limited Partnership law. 2008. Web.

Sole Proprietorship formation, 2008. Web.

Findlaw, 2008. Web.