CRIME & PUNISHMENT CASE STUDY

Question 1 - Identify the key issues

Answer: The key issues in the case study are as follows;
a. John and Steve were sacked after being accused of theft and fraud.
b. Their "crime" was filling in a pothole at the Lions Sports Club with a few shovels full
of councils asphalt after the club manager Joe told them it was a hazard and he was
not being able to get it fixed despite contacting the council.
c. They filled the pothole during their lunch break with councils leftover asphalt from
some other job which they were going to throw away otherwise.
d. A week later at the same club they were given the sandwiches by the grateful
manager.
e. A whistle blower alerted the council eight months after the incident.
Question 2 - Discuss the key issues
Answer:
Community service
The act of filling the pothole was an act of community service as it was hazard for the
community especially for the elderly people visiting the club on bingo nights. John and Steve
are very experienced and old employees of the council who wouldnt breach the council
policies for their own benefits such as a free lunch.
Whistle Blowing & Its Timing
The whistle blower has to be a person who was present at the time of the incident when
Joe, the manager of the Lions Club offered a free lunch in recognition of the help/services
provided by the two workers of the council. The important thing here to note is that John
and Steve wanted to pay for the lunch but they were not allowed to do so by the manager
as a gesture of thankfulness. Either John or Steve or both of them must have had a conflict
or a situation with this unknown person that made him blow the whistle after eight months
of the incident is an action of revenge.
Harsh Penalty
The council was already having hard time protecting its good image in the public following
the cases of high profile frauds when this issue occurred before them. In order to protect its
image in the public and to set an example for the rest of council employees and workers a
very harsh penalty was imposed on John and Steve that resulted in both of the persons
losing their jobs.
Question 3 - Outline the action that you would have taken if you were John and Steves
supervisor
Answer: It is important to note here that the Whistle blowers Act has got to be used in the
public interest whereas in this case it was not used in the public interest. If I was their
supervisor I would have listened to the stories of both the parties to the case and the
maximum penalty would have been a fine of nominal value. I would have supported the
decision with the argument that there was a bit of negligence on part of John and Steve as
they should have reported to their supervisor about the issue. But their offence was not
criminal.