Professional responsibility: The role of the engineer in society

We argue that the practice of engineering does not exist outside the domain of societal interests. That is, the practice of engineering has an inherent (and unavoidable) impact on society. Engineering is based upon that relationship with society (inter alia). An engineer’s conduct (as captured in professional codes of conduct) toward other engineers, toward employers, toward clients, and toward the public is an essential part of the life of a professional engineer, yet the education process and professional societies pay inadequate attention to the area. If one adopts Skooglund’s definition of professional ethics^I (how we agree to relate to one another), then the codes of professional conduct lay out a road map for professional relationships. As professionals, engineers need to internalize their codes and to realize that they have a personal stake in the application of codes as well as the process of developing the codes. Yet, most engineers view professional codes as static statements developed by “others” with little (or no) input from the individual engineer. Complicating the problem, questions of professionalism (such as ethics) are frequently viewed as topics outside the normal realm of engineering analysis and design. In reality, professional responsibility is an integral part of the engineering process.     

Divorce,single parenthood and stepfamilies: Structural implications of these transactions

This article focuses on change in the family structure during the divorce as well as in the sequential stages of single parenthood and the reconstituted family. Special characteristics of these families and the tasks to be undertaken to enable the new unit to function are discussed conceptually and through case illustrations. Family therapy is seen as particularly helpful during the crisis stage when either a parent leaves or a new unit is added to an established one. The necessity of being aware of and working with all parts of the system, both the split-off and the newly-added, is stressed.     

The need of courage

A brave man leaveth not the battle, He who flieth from it is no true warrior, In the field of this body a great war is toward Against Passion, Hunger, Pride and Greed, It is for the Kingdom of Truth, of Contentment and of Purity that this battle is raging: And the sword that ringeth most loudly is the sword Of His name.

—KABIR, Hindu Poet

     

Competence to proceed in SVP commitment hearings: Irrelevant or fundamental due process right?

Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) civil commitment, intended to incapacitate offenders and protect the public, has been implemented in 21 jurisdictions. While respondents in traditional civil commitment proceedings need not be competent to proceed, SVP commitment may present a greater deprivation of liberty and therefore greater procedural protections may be merited. Statutes and case law regarding competence in this context address two issues: competence to challenge unproven sexual offense allegations and competence to participate in the SVP commitment process. Of the 14 states that have addressed the issue, one concluded that respondents must be competent to challenge unproven allegations and one concluded that all SVP respondents must be competent to participate in the commitment process. Differences between SVP and traditional civil commitment, the rationale underlying the competence requirement, and decisions regarding competence in SVP commitment are reviewed to inform debate regarding whether SVP respondents must be competent to proceed with the commitment process. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Free software and copyright enforcement: A tool for global copyright policy?

One of the paradoxes of the free software ideology is its reliance on the legal institutions it was created to object to. One could argue that Free Software Foundation is using copyright to enforce their free software licenses as aggressively as the Business Software Alliance is enforcing its clients’ copyrights. We will show that the reality is more complex and that there is a significant difference: the free software community uses primarily non-legal enforcement methods and trusts on social norms. We argue that free software could be used as a tool to make copyright more accepted in the less developed world because of its positive connection with copyright and community based approach. We explain why strong copyright is also in the interest of free software developers. The article concludes by suggesting that World Intellectual Property Organization should include free software into its development agenda.