Law case study analysis on: Charlie Simms
The case study is about a poor boy named Charlie Simms who studies in a private preparatory school. In order to go home for Christmas, Charlie engages in a job where he has to look after a blind, alcoholic, eccentric and a rude U.S. Army officer Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade who has retired and in his middle age. A major issue at school brings hell lot of disturbance in Charlie’s life. Three students play a prank on the headmaster, Mr. Trask. Charlie and his friend George are the only two people who know who all are involved in this prank. However both of them do not agree to reveal the name of the culprits. Initially Mr.Trask threatens both of them that he will expel them out of the school but later he tries to bribe Charlie by giving him an offer that if he will disclose the names of the culprits, he will get Chrlie admitted in Harvard. Though, Charlie still does not break his silence and on that Mr.Trask warns him about the consequences for being a “cover-up artist.” In the meanwhile Charlie becomes very loyal to Colonel Slade and becomes the only person to stand by him. Even at one instance he saves colonel even from his family. In one of their intimate discussion, Colonel also tells Charlie that he just want a good woman in his life than anything else. When Charlie go back to school he finds that Mr.Trask has conducted a courtroom-like assembly of the student body and the Disciplinary Committee where is George is about to tell the name of the students who played prank on the headmaster. With the help of his sourceful father, George somehow manages to come out of picture and put the entire burden on Charlie. Charlie still refuses to tell the name of the students involved in the prank and is about to face the consequences of the same when suddenly Mr.Slade comes into the picture to safeguard Charlie. He brings in front of everyone that Mr.Trask offered bribe to Charlie in return of name of the students. Through his aggressive speech, Slade manages to win students and the committee and Charlie gets exoneration.
In the end of the case study, Charlie decides to tell a lie in front of school authorities, his teachers who have always thought him to follow the path of truth, his school mates and off course Mr.Trask. He has in his mind that his decision may result in resignation from school which will destroy his future for ever but still he does not discloses names of the culprits.
What does this case study is indicating is that protecting your fellows who have done something wrong is not a wrong thing. If that is the case, then how come bribe is a wrong thing. And in case Charlie follows the path of honesty towards Mr.Trask, then again bribe does not count as a bad thing. Thus the two choices which are available for Charlie is either tell the lie or become a snitcher. It totally depends upon the value system of an individual that which of the one sin he chooses. But ultimately one is choosing a sin at the end.
In many organizations today, we see the similar kind of value culture where employees are either keeping mum on the various wrong things happening in an organization or if they agree to disclose the same in front of their top management they want something in return of their benefit.
In the case study, Charlie’s decision to keep silent is not at all on the basis of ethical grounds. It is the peer pressure which forces him to keep quite as he is being interrogated in front of entire student body. He must be having a thought in the back of his mind that other students and his friends will through him out of their group in case he will disclose the names of the pranksters.
In present day organizations also, peer pressure is enormous on employees who force them to take certain decisions which proves to be very dangerous for the health of an organization as well as members of that organization. But the fear of being expelled by other employees make honest and true employees reluctant from bringing the true picture in front of concern people.
The most shocking surprise in the case study comes when Mr.Slade, a retired person from US military praises Charlie’s decision to keep mum. Slade is presumably a graduate of West Point, where the famous Honor Code says: “A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.” In other words, if you know one of your fellow students has done something wrong, you have a duty to snitch. If you don’t, you’re just as guilty as they are.
In practical world also, a support from an influential person on certain unexpected decision encourages wrong doing in an organization and brings down the morale of the employees which are of different mindset. Thus any top personnel have to be really very conscious while praising an act of an employee as it holds great importance in the development of behavior of other members of an organization.
In order to overcome such situations in an organization, it is the key responsibility of top management to create a transparent environment where every member of an organization feel free to bring things going on in an organization in the eyes of concerned authorities without any hesitation or fear of ignorance. While dealing with the situation management should act very tact fully that it does not discloses the identity of the person who has brought forward that particular thing in order to motivate him/ her further.
Like in the case study, it was in the hands of Mr.Trask to tactfully get the names of the culprits from Charlie and George, but instead he exaggerated the issue and made things unfavorable for him.
If you want Law Assignment Help study samples to help you write professional custom essay’s and essay writing help.
Receive assured help from our talented and expert writers! Did you buy assignment and assignment writing services from our experts in a very affordable price.
To get more information, please contact us or visit www.myassignmenthelp.Com
