-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would You Have Convicted Governor McDonnell of Bribery?
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
Thanks for asking. My conclusions are the same as those of the unanimous Court. The Court has interpreted the statute in the only coherent way possible. To interpret "official act" in the expansive way that the government did by which McDonnell was convicted would make basically every act a public official does an "official act," and would make the acceptance of every gift or loan by a public official a bribe.
Of course, it isn't a bribe when someone merely assumes that an official merely "intended" to commit a quid pro quo but never performed any official act toward that end.
I don't understand what is achieved by assuming that every gift or loan a politician receives is a bribe.
That's interesting - I would have said the opposite. I don't think politicians ought to be allowed to receive gifts of any big value, and loans ought to be treated as loans for civilians are treated. Everything else seems rife for corruption.
What is a "big value"?
See, the problem with that condition is that the concept of bribery does not hinge upon the "size" of the thing of value that is given. A bribe can happen even when the thing of value is "small".
So you have no problem with McDonnell receiving the loans he received?
I don't know McDonnell at all. On principle it seems that the way things are set up now, it's far too easy for politicians to fall into various - legal or not - forms of corruption. So on principle - regardless of whether it's technically legal - I don't think politicians ought to get ANY sorts of special financial favors that citizens don't have access to. The odds of corruption are just too high.
But in the case of McDonnell, you have merely assumed that he was guilty of bribery despite the fact that you could not specify the "official act" that the statute requires in order for someone to be guilty of bribery. It's impossible to write a law that will prevent people from making assumptions about people's behaviors.
It's so ironic that you say that because it's public officials (and others with a legal or public duty) who are subject to the special laws that criminalize bribery. Ordinary citizens who are not and do not involve public officials or those who have a public or legal duty can engage in bribery and what is otherwise called corruption for public officials.
No, I assumed he was morally guilty, and I admitted my limited understanding of the laws that turn his actions into legal ones.
As for the citizenry, are you sure citizens can't perform illegal acts of bribery? How about if a thief bribes an employee to allow the thief to steal from the employer's loading dock?
As for the citizenry, are you sure citizens can't perform illegal acts of bribery? How about if a thief bribes an employee to allow the thief to steal from the employer's loading dock?
Why do you say that McDonnell is "morally guilty" of bribery? Why is the criteria for being "morally guilty" of bribery different than for being guilty of doing the crime?
They would both be guilty of theft--as would a public official or someone with a legal or public duty if s/he took a bribe in order for someone else to steal something. What I noted was that "it's public officials (and others with a legal or public duty) who are subject to the special laws that criminalize bribery. Ordinary citizens who are not and do not involve public officials or those who have a public or legal duty can engage in bribery and what is otherwise called corruption for public officials." It isn't illegal for an ordinary citizen to bribe, say, the bribe the HVAC repair contractor to put one at the top of the list.
I can't speak to the intricacies of our current body of law. My sense is that there are many laws on the books that let people get away with unethical and/or immoral behavior. If you say that there are legal definitions of bribery, I'll accept that. I'm talking about general ethics, independent of how laws are or are not in alignment with them.
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
An interesting thread. From a British point of view, I think he'd have been convicted over here. We have very strict rules about gifts. When I worked at the Home Office, some visiting Norwegians who'd come to learn how we did something or other, left my department a big box of chocolates. We had to get official permission to eat them!