I found this story interesting and pertinant to some of the ethical issues being discussed. Former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson was convicted of bribery and money laundering and sentenced to 13 years in prison. (Title is the link.) The jury found him guilty based on the evidence they heard, but the defense tried to argue that the acts "were not criminal because they did not qualify as 'official acts' under public corruption laws."
What qualifies as an official act may be questioned, but is it ever ethical use your position in office for personal enrichment? And similar to our discussions about journalists, can public and ethical and obligations be separated from personal actions when working in a professional capacity? In many cases, journalists aren't dealing with criminal implications, however crossing ethical lines to break the career-making story or taking sides in a protest after covering the story can be part of the same issue.
NB C-notes
-
From the WaPo:
NEW YORK -- The Society of Professional Journalists condemned NBC News for
practicing "checkbook journalism" by chartering a jet that carrie...
14 years ago
4 comments:
You pose an interesting question about segregation. I think that once you assume a public role, your ethical obligations become tied to you at all levels.
It was very unethical for Mr. Jefferson to use his position to gain power and beg for money. Then he neglected disclosing his own financial interest in the deal, that is extremely unethical to both the public and stakeholders. I think it also unethical to use political stance for personal enrichment since all people must abide by the same laws.
Second, yes public, ethical, and obligations can be seperated, while working in a professional capacity. In modern society organizations expect people to prioritize adhering to high morales and values - ultimately it is our obligation to abide by our morales and values to ethically serve the publics interest.
In addition, I think it's worth pointing out that the defense's argument apparently failed miserably since he was convicted. That's a tough stand to take, but given the gravity of his actions and the wealth of evidence, they really had to grasp at straws. So there really seems no way around the fact that, as a public official at his level, those "personally" enriching activities were only possible and facilitated by his official position.
Thanks for your comments. I do agree that the defense's argument was weak. I also believe that there should be a higher standard of ethics for public officials because of the potential opportunities for abuse of power.
Public officials are often elected because of their combined professional and personal affiliations. In this sense, there can be very little separation between personal and public actions.
Post a Comment