I think so! Say we find out about a mayor whose been lining his pockest…in 10 years, he’s stolen several million $. I think his punishment should be twice what a standard crook gets. Why? He has betrayed a public trust!
And, lets ye diss me on this, the father of Laws (Hammuraabi) had this in his original set of laws.
if nothing lese, longer jail sentences would keep corrupt officials out of office for longer!
It is an interesting idea. Hammurabic law, and (I think) the Assyrian empire were saying that rank and privilege carry responsibility. There seems also to be a consideration that the more highly placed you are, the more damage you can do. However, on the more pragmatic side, the effects of such a law would be to gut our govenment. Most of our “leaders” would be sitting in jail instead of the Capitol building :eek:
Can we at least start by actually punishing them equivalently to other criminals? Other than a few high profile cases (Trafficant for example), most of these bastards use their clout and connections to get off the hook.
A related proposal I’ve heard would be to make “swearing to always tell the truth” a part of an official’s oath of office. The moment you get someone lying on the record, boom!
Well, let’s say it was NYC (not that Bloomberg needs any more $). If you did the math:
Instead of commiting grand larceny to the tune of a few million from some treasury account; which is a felony
This hypothetical mayor technically stole a few bucks from every taxpaying constituent; which would amount to 8 million misdemeanor counts
I could just imagine how many years probation that would add up to
I think like everything else, it depends on the circumstances.
Let’s say for instance the public official is a fault in a minor fender bender traffic accident. The official wasn’t drinking but he was at fault, and he has insurance in place to cover the victim’s damages. Should he get the maximum penalty just because he’s an official, or should he be treated like most everybody else and given a midling fine and a suspended sentence of some sort? I’d say he should be treated like everyone else.
That’s completely different from embezzingly city funds, for which he should be hammered if convicted for violating a public trust.
What about drunk driving? Should he get the max? I dunno, but my inclination is to say that on a first offense he should get a similar sentence as other first offenders. On a second or third offense I think he should get the max but not on a first offense.
IIRC things like this are called something else legally…Infractions?? rather than a felony or misdemeanor. I don’t think an infraction should hit them any worse than another since many of these things are accidents that could happen to anyone.
Or why not make public office a kind of “special circumstance” akin to existing add ons to sentences for hate crimes, weapon use, etc. Embezzling dosent happen by accident, acceptance of bribes doesn’t happen by accident. Any crime that requires mens rea should have an additional penalty to elected officials. I feel they do have an obligation to serve as examples and role models to their communities and should be penalized more harshly upon those who without a doubt know better or worse plan to exploit their position to minimize punishment.
Well, I’m not familiar with the Presidential Oath of office but it sure doesn’t stop them from lieing. I like the idea though.
There should be a crap load of changes in the Public office category. A return of the term public servant would be helpful.
I think their punishment should be at least as severe as any other criminal with the added penalty that once they have betrayed the public trust they can NEVER and I mean NEVER EVER hold public office again. This wouldn’t apply to personnal issues or offenses that have nothing to do with his or her job. Offenses directly related to their public service…You’re OUT…Permanantly.
We’re talking about public service but what about the recent CEO and wallstreet BS? If you screw over every one in your company and the stock holders I think the penalties should be fairly severe.
Punished the same? Yes. Punished more severely, no. Part of the American ideal is that we’re all equals. To punish our public officials more severely, we’d have to first see them as somehow superior simply because they they were elected rather then hired. A person who is in a position to be able to embezzle a million dollars and does so has betrayed his employers trust. Who his employers are should make no difference.
Just my (doubtlessly poorly worded) two cents
Peace - DESK
How about a new type of handle like " betrayed public trust strike 1."
Anyone in public office gets a list of betrayals that follow them throughout their public service career.
Like Alaska’s Vidalia county sherriff who was caught solicitating prostitution will forever be known as Vidalia county sherriff (state true name) bpt1.
Just a thought after a couple of beers.
I don’ t even know if there is a Vidalia county Alaska
I might call this one one of the personnal matters I refered to, although it’s hard to have credibility as a law enforcememt officer after you are caught breaking the law. There must be some concept of “even public officials are human” In this case a fine might be appropriate. If he aided in a robbery in some way, even by looking the other way, then he should be gone.
True except if he was using his power as sherriff he should be chastized severly. It must be remembered that he asked for the public trust when he ran for office.