5 Examples of Institutional Racism in the United States

5 Examples of Institutional Racism in the United States

World War I - Battle of Caporetto on the Italian Front

The Battle of Caporetto was fought from October 24 to November 19, 1917, during World War I (1914-1918). Armies and Commanders Italians General Luigi CadornaGeneral Luigi Capello15 divisions, 2213 guns Central Powers General Otto von BelowGeneral Svetozar Boroevic25 divisions, 2,200 guns Battle of Caporetto Background With the conclusion of the Eleventh Battle of Isonzo in September 1917, Austro-Hungarian forces were nearing the point of collapse in the area around Gorizia. Faced with this crisis, Emperor Charles I sought aid from his German allies. Though the Germans felt that the war would be won on the Western Front, they agreed to provide troops and support for a limited offensive designed to throw the Italians back across the Isonzo River and, if possible, past the Tagliamento River. For this purpose, the composite Austro-German Fourteenth Army was formed under the command of General Otto von Below. Preparations In September, the Italian commander-in-chief General Luigi Cadorna became aware that an enemy offensive was in the offing. As a result, he ordered the commanders of the Second and Third Armies, Generals Luigi Capello and Emmanuel Philibert, to begin preparing defenses in-depth to meet any attack. Having issued these orders, Cadorna failed to see that they were obeyed and instead began an inspection tour of other fronts which lasted until October 19. On the Second Army front, Capello did little as he preferred to plan for an offensive in the Tolmino area. Further weakening Cadornas situation was an insistence on keeping the bulk of the two armies troops on the east bank of the Isonzo despite the fact that the enemy still held crossings to the north. As a result, these troops were in prime position to be cut off by an Austro-German attack down the Isonzo Valley. In addition, the Italian reserves on the west bank were placed too far to the rear to rapidly aid the front lines. For the upcoming offensive, Below intended to launch the main assault with the Fourteenth Army from a salient near Tolmino. This was to be supported by secondary attacks to the north and south, as well as by an offensive near the coast by General Svetozar Boroevics Second Army. The assault was to be preceded by a heavy artillery bombardment as well as the use of poison gas and smoke. Also, Below intended to employ a substantial number of stormtroopers, which were to use infiltration tactics to pierce the Italian lines. With planning complete, Below began shifting his troops into place. This done, the offensive commenced with the opening bombardment  Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã‚  which began before dawn on October 24. The Italians Routed Caught by complete surprise, Capellos men suffered badly from the shelling and gas attacks. Advancing between Tolmino and Plezzo, Belows troops were able to quickly shatter the Italian lines and began driving west. Bypassing Italian strong points, the Fourteenth Army advanced over 15 miles by nightfall. Surrounded and isolated, the Italian posts in its rear were reduced in the coming days. Elsewhere, the Italian lines held and were able to turn back Belows secondary attacks, while the Third Army held Boroevic in check Despite these minor successes, Belows advance threatened the flanks of the Italian troops to the north and south. Alerted to the enemy breakthrough, Italian morale elsewhere on the front began to plummet. Though Capello recommended a withdrawal to the Tagliamento on the 24th, Cadorna refused and worked to rescue the situation. It was not until a few days later, with Italian troops in full retreat, that Cadorna was forced to accept that a movement to the Tagliamento was inevitable. At this point, vital time had been lost and Austro-Germans forces were in close pursuit. On October 30, Cadorna ordered his men to cross the river and establish a new defensive line. This effort took four days and was quickly thwarted when German troops established a bridgehead over the river on November 2. By this point, the stunning success of Belows offensive began to hinder operations as the Austro-German supply lines were unable to keep up with the speed of the advance. With the enemy slowing, Cadorna ordered a further retreat to the Piave River on November 4. Though many Italian troops had been captured in the fighting, the bulk of his troops from the Isonzo region were able to form a strong line behind the river by November 10. A deep, wide river, the Piave finally brought the Austro-German advance to an end. Lacking the supplies or equipment for an attack across the river, they elected to dig in. Aftermath The fighting at the Battle of Caporetto cost the Italians around 10,000 killed, 20,000 wounded, and 275,000 captured. Austro-German casualties numbered around 20,000. One of the few clear victories of World War I, Caporetto saw the Austro-German forces advance around 80 miles and reach a position from which they could strike at Venice. In the wake of the defeat, Cadorna was removed as chief of staff and replaced with General Armando Diaz. With their allys forces badly wounded, the British and French sent five and six divisions, respectively, to bolster the Piave River line. Austro-German attempts to cross the Piave that fall were turned back as were attacks against Monte Grappa. Though a massive defeat, Caporetto rallied the Italian nation behind the war effort. Within a few months, the losses of material had been replaced and the army quickly recovered its strength through the winter of 1917/1918. Sources Duffy, Michael. The Battle of Caporetto, 1917. Battles, First World War, August 22, 2009. Rickard, J. Battle of Caporetto, 24 October - 12 November 1917 (Italy). History of War, March 4, 2001.

Comparing Marlow of Heart of Darkness and Willard of...

Comparing Marlow of Heart of Darkness and Willard of Apocalypse Now Whenever books are adapted for film, changes inevitably have to be made. The medium of film offers several advantages and disadvantages over the book: it is not as adept at exploring the inner workings of people - it cannot explore their minds so easily; however, the added visual and audio capabilities of film open whole new areas of the imagination which, in the hands of a competent writer-director, can more than compensate. Heart of Darkness relies heavily on lengthy philosophical and expository passages, as well as some very unusual and complex imagery; â€Å"not the easiest material to rewrite as a screenplay† (Canby, 18). However, rewrite it Francis Ford†¦show more content†¦Therefore, Coppola elected to change the character, the only similarity between the two being that they are both normal people amongst lunatics, and are both outsiders - Marlow never fits in with the corrupt and immoral Company, and Willard does not play by the usual army rules (both characters are uncannily similar to Kurtz in that respect). The similarities end there. Willard lacks the depth of thought that Marlow has; Willard does not digress into lengthy ethical debates, or philosophize. Also, he does not use imagery of any sort - the strong, red-eyed devils and the flabby, weak-eyed devils from the book are not mentioned (if Willard were Marlow, he would have admonished the army leaders in Saigon for being flabby devils, for example), nor does he have any of the fascination with shoes and other arbitrary objects and ideas that Marlow seems to. Willard also has no qualms whatsoever about killing, whether it be innocents (the girl on the trading boat) or Kurtz himself; in the book, Marlow had an abhorrence towards killing. These are mostly unavoidable differences, due to the different settings. Marlow is an imaginative pilot who wishes to explore the Congo, having had a fascination with the many blank spaces on the earth†¢ from childhood; Willard is a soldier through and through and does not have time to moralize. Were these changes not present, then Apocalypse Now would have been horribly off-balanced,Show MoreRelatedParallels Between Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now1871 Words   |  8 PagesVarious parallels can be drawn when comparing and contrasting Joseph Conrads Heart of Darkness and Frank Coppolas Apocalypse Now, while taking into consideration Heart of Darkness is a novella and Apocalypse Now is a film. These differences and similarities can be seen in themes, characters, events and other small snippets of information including anything from quoted lines to strange actions of the main characters. Both pieces follow the same story line but they are presented in differentRead MoreEssay on heart of darkness1844 Words   |  8 Pages Various parallels can be drawn when comparing and contrasting Joseph Conrads Heart of Darkness and Frank Coppolas quot;Apocalypse Nowquot;, while taking into consideration Heart of Darkness is a novella and quot;Apocalypse Nowquot; is a film. These di fferences and similarities can be seen in themes, characters, events and other small snippets of information including anything from quoted lines to strange actions of the main characters. Both pieces follow the same story line but they are presentedRead MoreComparative Essay1096 Words   |  5 Pagesanalysis: â€Å"Heart of Darkness† â€Å"Apocalypse Now† Student: Mora Vandenbroele Teacher: Azucena Estigarribia Year: 11th â€Å"A† â€Å"Heart of Darkness† vs. â€Å"Apocalypse Now† It is very interesting how humans are so intrigued about the evilness in the world, and the dedication of some men to compare Hell with the Earthly horror. Joseph Conrad, a genius writer, took his time to show this with his masterpiece â€Å"Heart of Darkness† that wasRead MoreComparing and Contrasting Marlow/Willard and Kurtz979 Words   |  4 PagesComparing and Contrasting Marlow/Willard and Kurtz Inherent inside every human soul is a savage evil side that remains repressed by society. History is loaded with examples of atrocities that have occurred when one culture comes into contact with another. Whenever fundamentally different cultures meet, there is often a fear of contamination and loss of self that leads one to discover more about one s true self, often causing perceived madness. Heart of Darkness, a novel written by Joseph ConradRead MoreAnalysis Of Joseph Conrad s Heart Of Darkness1164 Words   |  5 PagesAs Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness eludes to the inverse interpretation of colors as a motif, Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now not only mimics but also portrays through the Vietnam War, the contrasting misguided crusades of enlightenment that the supreme race forces upon savages. The reversed meanings amongst the colors and entangled description in Heart of Darkness shows how backwards civilization is through the need to enlighten or civilize the natives is flamboyantly flaunted in both the

Difference Between Enlightenment and Romanticism free essay sample

Difference Between Enlightenment and Romanticism Enlightenment and Romanticism are two aspects of literature in which the thinkers contributed according to their school of thought. Writers that contributed to romanticism are called as romantics. On the other hand, writers that contributed to enlightenment are called as enlightenment thinkers. Romantics gave more importance to intense emotion in their works. On the other hand, the enlightenment thinkers did not give that much importance to intense emotion in their works. Instead, they valued tradition the more. This is a significant difference between enlightenment and romanticism. As a matter of fact, you can see that romanticism is laden with works wherein characteristics were overdone. On the other hand, enlightenment thinkers never overdid the characteristics. This is another key difference between enlightenment and romanticism. One of the most prominent differences between the two schools of thought is that while enlightenment thinkers showed more importance and concern towards reason in their writings and speeches, the romanticism thinkers showed a lot of concern and significance to imagination. We will write a custom essay sample on Difference Between Enlightenment and Romanticism or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page It can be said that romantics valued imagination more than anything else did, and hence they depended more on enjoyment in their works. During the age of Enlightenment, the philosophes believed that reason could be used to explain everything. The philosophes believed that people could make the world a better place to live in. Voltaire is against such optimism. Ian Bell Says The optimist argument then, was complex and sophisticated, but like all ironists Voltaire chose to simplify it to the extent that it seemed complacent and absurd, and he went on to cast doubt on our chances of ever securing eternal happiness'(1-2). According to Voltaire true happiness can only be experienced in an unreal world. The multitudes of disasters that Candide endures after leaving Eldorado culminate in his eventual abandonment of optimism. Candide loses four of his sheep laden with priceless jewels due to natural causes, and then sees his two remaining sheep stolen, and the local magistrate indifferent to the theft. Certainly, [says Candide,] if everything goes well, it is in Eldorado and not in the rest of the world (42). Candide goes a step further, Oh Pangloss, cried Candide, you have no notion of these abominations! Im through, I must give up your optimism after all. Whats optimism? said Cacambo. Alas, said Candide, it is a mania for saying things are well when one is in hell (40). Candides enthusiastic view of life is contrasted with, and challenged by suffering that he endures throughout the book. Hence, Voltaire uses the book to satirize the foolishness of optimism. Voltaire also satirizes religion. According to him the extremely pious and the clergy are willing to turn their back on their fellow man, but those who have not even been baptized are willing to lend a helping hand. Candide, shortly after the battle, asks many religious individuals for alms, but they all, including one who had just lectured on charity, refused to aid him. Finally Jacques the Anabaptist takes pity on his fellow human, a featherless biped possessing a soul (6). Voltaire attacks not only the blanket optimism of Dr. Pangloss, but also the religious notion of providence, the idea that there is a divine will guiding earthly events. The fact that good and bad alike suffer and die seems to be evidence that God is not in charge. Voltaire believed that God had abandoned the world. Robert Adams adds, Perhaps Voltaire, like many other unbelievers, especially those with Jesuit training, continued to respect the logic of the church in which he no longer believed (183). The hypocrisy of religion, especially that of the Roman Catholic Church, is recurrent in Candide. Underlying the satire of religious practices is Voltaires outrage at all forms of fanaticism and intolerance. Voltaire claims that religious leaders blame the fall of man [as the system] we put on all these individual maladies. Voltaire adds, it is clear that the system undermines the very foundations of the Christian religion, and explains nothing at all (88) O. Wade says Voltaire destroys the philosophy of optimism by graphically describing the tragic miseries of humanity: Candide offers us the saddest themes disguised under the merriest of jokes, the joking being of that philosophical variety which is peculiar to M. de Voltaire, [ ] he makes the all is well system, upheld by so many philosophers, look completely ridiculous (146). Despite attacking the optimists, Voltaire offers no solution to the problems. Wade writes Voltaires attitude towards optimism is difficult to trace because of the ambiguity of his position (150) According to Voltaire, we must cultivate our gardens, its the only way of rendering life bearable (75). He says since true happiness is hard to find, hard work is the only way one can live in contentment. Voltaire makes Candide an interesting and entertaining book, but also uses it to ridicules the optimism of the enlightenment. Otherwise, William Blake is a romantic poet. The sparks of romanticism are vividly marked on his poetry. The question arises what is Romanticism? The answer is that it is a phenomenon characterized by reliance on the imagination and subjectivity of approach, freedom of thought and expression, and an idealization of nature. It was Schelling who first defined romanticism as ‘liberalism in literature’. Though romanticism officially started by the Lyrical Ballads jointly penned by Wordsworth and Coleridge in 1830, poets like William Blake made cracks to classicism towards the end of the18th century. In Romanticism, a piece of work could become, as Blake described, â€Å"an embodiment of the poet’s imagination and vision. † Many of the writers of the Romantic period were highly influenced by the war between England and France and the French Revolution. In the midst of all these changes, Blake too was inspired to write against these ancient ideas. ‘All Religions Are One’, and ‘There is No Natural Religion’ were composed in hopes of bringing change to the public’s spiritual life. Blake felt that, unlike most people, his spiritual life was varied, free and dramatic. Blake’s poetry features many characteristics of the romantic spirit. The romanticism of Blake consists in the importance he attached to imagination, in his mysticism and symbolism, in his love of liberty, in his humanitarian sympathies, in his idealization of childhood, in the pastoral setting of many of his poems, and in his lyricism. Researchers on the two schools of thought firmly believe that Romanticism is nothing but a reaction against Enlightenment. It is said that romantics depended heavily on the creativity of individuals, and as a consequence, they did not follow any other rule. On the other hand, the enlightenment thinkers followed so many rules regarding life and hence they paid a lot of attention to reason. Finally, it can be said with authority that most fine arts were influenced deeply only during the Romantic period. Painting, music, and poetry were all influenced by the Romantic period. On the other hand, philosophical thinking was influenced by the enlightenment period. These are the main differences between enlightenment and romanticism.

Test For Dishonesty County Court Of Victoria Free Sample

Question: Discuss about the Test for Dishonesty for County Court of Victoria. Answer: Part 1: Brief Facts In this case[1], the appellant was a solicitor who was facing trial in County Court of Victoria on the charges that were based on the conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth in accordance with sections 86(1)(e) and 86A, Crimes Act, 1914 (Cth). Similarly the appellant also stood trial for a charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The accused was acquitted of this charge but was convicted on the charge of conspiracy to defraud. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed his appeal against conviction. Under the circumstances, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Australia. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant was retained by Mr. Spong in 1983 for acting in certain transactions that were related with the purchase of five blocks of land in Essendon, Victoria. On October 5, one block of land, that had substantial residences on it, was purchased under the name of Jetoline Pty Ltd. The appellant was a director and also a shareholder of this company. The other director of this company was 'Freeman' which was an alias used by Spong and the appellant was aware of this fact. However it is not clear if the other blocks of land had also been purchased in the name of Jetoline. The issue in this case was not that Spong was dealing in illegal drug trafficking or that he had purchased these properties with the money that was obtained by name as a result of this drug trafficking. Apart from it, it follows that the acquittal of the appellant on the charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice it has to be considered that the appellant was ignor ant regarding the source of this money. Although, whole of the money has been provided by Spong for purchasing these properties, the fact had been concealed by executing two sham mortgage documents. One of these documents was a memorandum of mortgage on the block of land on which the residence mentioned above has been erected. This mortgage was in favor of a person who was identified as Rosenberg, which was another alias that was used by Spong. The other document was a mortgage over the rest of the five blocks of land in favor of Dial Financial Services Pty Ltd. In this case the appellant had acted on behalf of purchaser/mortgagor regarding this mortgage and there was another solicitor who had acted on behalf of Dial. In reality, no money was advanced under these two mortgages. In fact the solicitor who was acting for Dial could not register the mortgage to that company and as a result, a caveat was lodged in order to protect its interests. Later on, the blocks of land were sold to genuine buyers, apart from the one on whi ch residence was erected. On settlement, all or a part of the proceeds of the seals were paid to Dial and the company executed the withdrawal of caveat so that the transfer of land in the name of the purchaser can be registered. Later on the money that was paid to Dial was paid back to Spong. In this way, the issue that was present in this trial regarding the charge of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth, it was the case of the prosecution that the appellant was a party to an agreement that was concluded for the purpose of concealing the true amount of the income of Spong with the help of sham mortgage transactions and in this way, it was the intention of the appellant and his fellow conspirators to deprive the tax that was payable on this income to the Federal Commissioner of Taxation. In his evidence, the appellant had admitted at some stage that Spong had informed him that no money was advanced by Dial under the mortgage and that the money that was paid to Dial, apparently as a partial discharge of the mortgage, was to be returned to Spong. But in this regard, the case is upon the fact that he was not a party to any agreement that was concluded with a view to conceal the income of Spong with the help of sham mortgage transactions or to deprive the Commissioner of th e text that was payable on such income. Therefore the appellant said that he was only acting as a solicitor for Spong. However in its decision, the High Court had firmly rejected the Ghosh test[2] and claimed that it was incongruous. As a result, since then, the Feely test[3] has been applied to fraud. Therefore in this case, Peters was charged with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and the conviction was appealed on the ground that the jury was wrongly directed by the court regarding dishonesty or the intention to defraud. The Court agreed regarding the meaning of 'defraud', there was a three-way split in the decision regarding the role and meaning of dishonesty in the offense. However the majority was formed by an unusual retraction by Kirby J. He was the only judge who found dishonesty as a separate, essential element that should be present in a conspiracy to defraud. On the other hand, according to the other four judges, dishonesty was an aspect of the elements of this offense. However the split regarding dishonesty was an issue that was left to the jury. In this regard, McHugh J and Gummow J stated that it was for the trial judge to decide if the alleged means that had been used by the accused were dishonest and it was not the task of the jury to define dishonesty to hold what can be described as a conspiracy to defraud or not. As a result, they did not find it necessary to discuss the appropriate test related with the dishonesty. In their joint judgment, Toohey and Gaudron JJ had stated that the cases where the defense of the accused denied dishonest behavior, the jury has to decide the issue of dishonesty and it was aspect of the agreement to use dishonest means and also the intention to place the interests of other party at risk. Whether both of these elements were dishonest, was the question that has to be decided by the jury and the judges formulated a test related with the dishonesty that had been rejected the Ghosh test[4] in some measures but it retains some reference to the ordinary community standards. The ratio and obiter of the decision given in this case can be described as that dishonesty was an essential and separate element in the offense and in his strongly worded judgment, the court argued in favor of an entirely subjective approac h for deciding dishonesty. However for the purposes of majority, he agreed with the judgment of Toohey and Gaudron JJ. Part 2 Research Essay The meaning of dishonesty in Australia: Peters v the Queen (1998) For many years, the criminal law in Australia was dominated by the so-called Ghosh Test. It was difficult to understand the legislative decision of introducing this test, particularly in view of the fact that the test has proved to be difficult if not impossible for the jurists to grasp. The intermediate courts were divided regarding the proper application of this test and its reintroduction may confuse, instead of simplifying the criminal law in Australia. There are very few cases that have attracted so much criticism from judicial and academic circles as was attracted by R v Ghosh.[5] In this case, the English Court of Appeal came up with a new test that can be applied for the purpose of deciding if a person has acted dishonestly or not. This came to be known as the Ghost Test. There are two limbs of this test and both of these links have to be satisfied in order to arrive at the finding of dishonesty. According to the first part of this test, the conduct of the person should be di shonest according to the ordinary standards of honest and reasonable people.[6] Similarly, according to the second controversial limb, it is required that either the person should actually know or realize that his conduct can be considered as dishonest according to the standards. This test was immediately criticized by the followers of criminal law in the UK and since then it has been significantly restricted in its application to criminal cases while application to civil cases has been rejected by the British courts, including the Privy Council. This test has also been repudiated by the Supreme Court of Canada stated that this test cannot be reconciled with basic principles of criminal law dealing with mens rea and similarly the High Court of Australia has also described his tests as incongruous, difficult, distracting and confusing.[7] However despite extensive criticism and rejection, and a somewhat apparent ignorance regarding the test, the Ghosh Test is still obliging in Queens land and is present in the Model Criminal Code, and as a result, it has been adopted by the legislatures of the Commonwealth, South Australia, Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. General Points Regarding Dishonesty: Dishonesty can be described as an explicit or implicit element that is present in several criminal offenses as well as in civil causes of action, both under the common law and statute in Australia and other parts of the world. The term dishonesty or its variations have been used in a large number of statutes and regulations that are prevalent in Australia and in case of England, dishonesty has to be proved in nearly half of all the prosecutions related with indictable offenses. It also needs to be mentioned, that in most of the cases, dishonesty has not been defined specifically, either in whole or part, still it acts as significant determinant of liability. In this way, dishonesty can be described as a characterization of conduct or more exactly the state of mind of the person who is involved in the conduct which connotes fault. Traditionally, dishonesty has been treated as a part of mens rea or the mental element of the criminal offenses. However in the language used in modern criminal courts, despite certain unsupported assertions to the contrary, dishonesty has been described as a fault element. As is the case with the legislators, the courts also generally refused to offer any definition of dishonesty however they are providing competing tests that can be applied for the purpose of deciding if something can be described as dishonest.[8] The origin of these tests can be tracked to the English authorities related with the meaning of dishonesty as mentioned in the Theft Act, 1968 (UK). The Feely Test: the English Court of Appeal explained the requirements of dishonesty as required in the Theft Act in R v Feely. The Court stated in this regard that the word 'dishonestly' is related with the state of mind of the person performing the act amounting to an appropriation. Whether the accused person has a particular state of mind is a question of fact that needs to be decided by the jury. The Court also stated that he did not agree that the judges should define the meaning of the term 'dishonestly'. This term is commonly used when deciding if an appropriation can be reasonably expected to be dishonest, and should apply the present standards of ordinary people. The Jurors also have to decide if particular conduct can be described as dishonest or not. Therefore the court stated that he did not see any reason why the Jurors should need the help of a judge to tell them what can be considered as dishonest, when they are in the jury box. The two main features of this test are that it is a subj ective test, due to the reason that it focuses on the actual state of mind of the accused by the evaluation of the fact that being accused had acted dishonestly depends on the standard of ordinary decent people instead of the standards of the accused or his personal beliefs that he or she was acting dishonestly. This particular aspect of the "Feely Test" remains the previously accepted view regarding fraud. Subsequently, the Feely test has been accepted as correctly stating the law regarding dishonesty on several occasions.[9] Similarly at the same time, there was the emergence of a competing line of authority according to which the test of dishonesty was to consider if the accused personally believed or considered his actions as being dishonest. This test has been described as extreme subjectivism by Williams[10] when it was stated in this regard that subjectivism of this level provides a bad name to subjectivism. The subjective approach to criminal liability, considers the intention of the defendant and the facts as they leave by the defendant to be and not to the system of values of the defendant. Ghosh Test: Therefore in Ghosh, an attempt was made by the Court of Appeal reconciled conflicting authorities. In the beginning, the court approached this task by describing the Feely test as being objective and rejected a purely objective test. In this regard the court gave the following example in order to justify its conclusion. The court cited the example of a person who comes from country where public transport is provided free of cost. On his first day, the person travels on a bus and gets off without paying the fare. The person never had the intention of paying but his mind was clearly honest even if his conduct, if judged objectively on the basis of what he has done, can be described as dishonest. Therefore it appears that by using the word dishonestly, it was not the intention of the Parliament to catch dishonest conduct in that sense or to the conduct to which no moral obloquy can they possibly attached.[11] In this context, it needs to be stated that the Ghost Test has not been universally accepted in Australia. In the beginning, it was accepted in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia but for most part, it was not approved in New South Wales, Victoria and to a lesser extent in the ACT. For example in Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493, the second linb of the Ghosh test was rejected by all the member judges of the High Court of Australia and they approved a test of dishonesty which only reflected the first live off this test, or in other words to see if the conduct of the defendant was dishonest when tested on the standard of ordinary decent people. This also came to be known as the Peters test. In this case, the majority comprising Justice Toohey and Justice Gaudron and Justice Kirby, who technically agreed with them, stated that there is a degree of incongruity in the notion that for the purpose of deciding dishonesty, the current standards of ordinary, honest persons h ave to be used and also the requirement this issue is to be decided by asking the question if the particular act was dishonest according to the standards and if so, if the accused was aware of this fact. This incongruity arises due to the fact that honest and ordinary people decide if the acts of any other person can be considered as dishonest by reference to the knowledge of belief of that person regarding some fact that is relevant to date in question or the intention of that person with which such act was done. They do not consider if the other person can be considered to have realized that the act was dishonest, judged by the standards of the ordinary and honest people. Therefore, for example it is considered as dishonest by ordinary people to assert as true something that is known to be false. And this is done by ordinary persons only because the person who had made the statement was aware of the fact that it was false and not due to the reason that such person should be considered to have realized that it was dishonest by the current standards of ordinary and honest people. In this case, the court also pointed out towards the practical difficulties that are related with the Ghosh test. The court stated that these difficulties arise because in most of the cases, where the issues involve honesty, the real question that has to be decided if the act was done with knowledge or belief in a particular thing or with a particularly intention, not if it is properly characterized as being dishonest. The court also provided a simple example in this regard. Generally, there is no question if the making of a false statement with the intention of depriving another person of his property is dishonest or not. Rather the question that arises in such a case is to see if the statement was made with the knowledge regarding its falsity and with the intention of depriving the other person. Although there can be certain unusual cases where the question can be received the act has been done with the knowledge of some matter or with some particularly intention can be described a s dishonest. It also needs to be mentioned that in case of the test of dishonesty provided in Peters, like in the Feely Test, is still highly subjective as it mainly focuses on the actual state of mind of the accused (like the knowledge, belief or the intention of the accused), although it is not require proof that it was realized by the defendant that his conduct can be considered as dishonest on the basis of ordinary standards. This test is not merely objective and it may even be mentioned as subjective. However ultimately, the objective characterization of the subjective state of mind is involved in this test. It was stated by the majority in Peters that a different test can be applied where dishonesty has been used in a particular sense in the legislation creating an offense, referring to the statutory provisions in Victoria that the city address the meaning of dishonesty. Since then, the test of dishonesty provided in Peters has been reaffirmed by the High Court and the general application o f the test has been confirmed while the second level of Ghosh test has been rejected on several occasions.[12] For example in Macleod v The Queen[13], it was stated by the court that the test of dishonesty provided in Peters can be applied to a State Fraud Offense and it was stated by the majority that adopting the reasoning of the court in Peters, there is no need that the appellant should have realized that acts in question were dishonest when compared on current standards of ordinary decent persons. There will be deleterious consequences if reference is required to subjective criterion of such a nature. The court further stated that it will distract the jurors from applying the test provided in Peters regarding dishonesty and it will limit the flexibility that is inherently present in the Peters direction. Part 3 Reflective piece In order to complete part 2 of the present assignment, the strategy adopted was to look at the cases related with the definition of dishonesty as a part of this offence. The starting point was Peters v The Queen but the decision given in this case provided the guidelines regarding the description of dishonesty. The earlier test that was used for the purpose of determining dishonesty was the Ghosh Test but the court declined to use this test, particularly the second limb of this test. In place of this test, the court came up with a novel test that had been reaffirmed by the High Court in other cases also. In this way, the second part of this assignment considers the circumstances under which it can be said that the defendant had acted with dishonesty. As a result of the test that was provided in this case, certain changes were also introduced in the way in which the courts determined the issue if the conduct of the defendant can be described as dishonest. in this case, the focus was on the real state of mind of the accused and for this purpose, intention, knowledge and belief of the accused is considered although the proof is not required that the defendant was aware of the fact that his or her conduct can be described as dishonest in view of the ordinary standards. Bibliography A Halpin, The Test for Dishonesty [1996] Crim LR 283 DW Elliott, Dishonesty in Theft: A Dispensable Concept [1982] Crim LR 395 at 408 E Griew, Dishonesty: The Objections to Feely and Ghosh [1985] Crim LR 431 at 344 K Campbell, The Test of Dishonesty in R v Ghosh, [1984] Cambridge LJ 349 at 357 Wayne La Fave, Criminal Laws (4th ed, 2003) 939 Williams G, The Standard of Honesty (1983) 133 New LJ 636 at 637 Case Law Macleod v The Queen (2003) 214 CLR 230 R v Ghosh (R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 R v Greenstein [1975] 1 WLR 1353 [1] Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 49 [2] R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 [3] R v Feely (1973) QB 530 [4] R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 [5]ibid [6] Wayne La Fave, Criminal Laws (4th ed, 2003) 939 [7] E Griew, Dishonesty: The Objections to Feely and Ghosh [1985] Crim LR 431 at 344 [8] K Campbell, The Test of Dishonesty in R v Ghosh, [1984] Cambridge LJ 349 at 357 [9] R v Greenstein [1975] 1 WLR 1353 [10] Williams G, The Standard of Honesty (1983) 133 New LJ 636 at 637 [11] A Halpin, The Test for Dishonesty [1996] Crim LR 283 [12] DW Elliott, Dishonesty in Theft: A Dispensable Concept [1982] Crim LR 395 at 408 [13] Macleod v The Queen (2003) 214 CLR 230