I will pay for the following article The Bribery Act and Its Relevancy to the Construction Industry. The work is to be 9 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page. Since receiving Royal Assent in 2010, the Bribery Act became completely enforceable under the law in July 2011. The Bribery Act is intended to be a more relevant and functional framework for combating bribery in both the public and private sectors. Up until 2011, the UK government had been eliciting justice under very old laws related to bribery and corruption, including The Prevention of Corruption Acts of 1889 through 1916. Since the days of these old acts, the structure of the business, and the prevalence of corruption and bribery required a new focus to ensure businesses and their stakeholders conduct practices in an equitable and honest manner. The Bribery Act was written with language to clearly outline what constitutes an offense related to bribery and to serve as a clear deterrent for utilizing bribery for the promise of some advantage.

There are four main points to the Bribery Act. The Act spells out the offense of bribing another, which includes giving a financial reward to another for the pursuit of receipt of advantage or making promises of a similar exchange for the same purpose (legislation.gov.uk 2010). Concurrently, the law identifying bribery of another individual also allows for potential prosecution for a party who, if given or giving the advantage to another, realizes that acceptance of this advantage would “constitute improper performance” of an activity (legislation.gov.uk 2010, p.3). The purpose of this Act was to repeal all other existing bribery laws (most of which were outdated and no longer relevant) while making it absolutely unambiguous about what constitutes bribery offenses to avoid utilizing language as a potential defense in the court system.

The Bribery Act also spells out what constitutes an offense as it pertains to bribing a foreign official. The Bribery Act clearly defines what represents a foreign official, in this case including any foreign individual who maintains a legislative, judicial, or administrative position outside of the UK.&nbsp.&nbsp.

You will prepare and submit a term paper on Criminiology. Your paper should be a minimum of 1000 words in length. 18 people had been sentenced to death prior to their DNA exoneration / release, the average sentence length served by exonerated individuals has been 13.6 years and approximately 70% of those who have been exonerated through DNA testing are people of color) point to the fact that our system is still far from being unerring. What Amy Bach found startling was that many of the legal professionals / lawyers involved were not aware of their roles in perpetuating bad conduct, or of how their behaviors were connected to the worst outcomes in courts. She concludes that ordinary injustice happens in a “blind spot” (Bach), when a community of professionals becomes so used to a pattern of errors that they stop seeing their roles in them. As for the question of how to create generations of individuals who stand up for humanity and human rights, she believes that the process should start in law schools across the country where people begin discussing with students about why these injustices continue to exist in America and what we can do about them (Bach). Some law theorists, such as Schlag (186-188), think that the main purpose of normative legal thought is to add semiotics, epistemology or social theory to its crystallized ethical-moral structure about what is right, efficient and good to do, by continuously repeating itself. It constitutes, therefore, an automated routine so deeply internalized and entrenched into our cognitive matrix that it creates our thoughts and keeps our work within the same rhetorical frameworks. Far from being a normative enterprise aiming to improve the political, economic performance of the courts or the legal profession in general, legal advocates do not realize that normative thought is a self-referential economy consisting of rhetorical structures that are manipulated from elsewhere, a bureaucratic tool for the of a certain type of discursive that is compatible with the practice of bureaucracy and “institutional inertia” (Schlag 186). Moreover, the normative appeal of normative thought impedes legal practitioners to recognize the fact that it is based on an unrealistic representation of the field it regulates. Instead of assisting a deeper understanding of current moral and political situations, it re-inscribes its own unbelievable representation of the moral / political scene. Normative thought will continue to be irresponsible until it begins to address its own paradoxical rhetorical structure which is populated by individuals who are the manipulated results of the system’s bureaucratic practices7 (Schlag 188-191) The law’s attitude towards the world is not curious, open to discovery or based on genuine intellectual enterprise because, at the heart of the discipline of law, there is a great deal of violence (Schlag 2060-61). For many legal practitioners, law has become an idolatrous self-serving, self-deceiving mechanism (Campos 284-300), whose violence is hidden deep inside. It is, perhaps, inherent to our current nature to pretend that our reality does not generate disturbing instances where the judicial system is impotent or, simply, inefficient.