How do you feel about the consolidation of the criminal law of each state's lifetime ban for positions of state and municipal services for the perpetrators of corruption offenses?
If only would work - question is who would be so "stupid" to accept the law, potentially banning him/her form the position. Had the case in Slovenia when politician which was in prison was elected to the parliament. There was promise that this would change - 2 years from that time - nothing changed.
It may be a double-edged sword. On the one hand harder penalties may discourage some from corruption that is incidences fall. On the other hand the increased risk may propel others to increase the ‘price tag’ that is the total sum of corruption stays the same.
These two propositions are typical of rational modelling with respect to corruption. Other perspective concerns democracy, revenge and rehabilitation of criminals.
In the article below we looked at the recommendations from civil servants. This is a discussion of the above mentioned propositions and perspectives.
Article How to combat corruption: Assessing anti-corruption measures...
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Nikitin,
There is a law in Pennsylvania against "official oppression," of possible interest to this question. I know that people have been charged under it, for example, in cases of the police using unnecessary force, as I recall. It seems, though, that having such a law is more important than the specifics of punishment. The general idea is to forbid officials from using their office to augment their own power and positions by means of "official oppression" of those subject to their office, and including the competitors or possible competitors. In this way, the courts (as well as the legislature) may act to control the excesses of the executive, and the law reinforces the division of powers.
A brief sketch:
2014 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
Chapter 53 - Abuse of Office
Section 5301 - Official oppression
Universal Citation: 18 PA Cons Stat § 5301 (2014)
§ 5301. Official oppression.
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he:
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.
---End quotation---
H.G. Callaway
Dear Sergei,
It is indeed needed. In India conviction in any criminal offence of moral turpitude is a disqualification in getting government jobs.
If any person has convicted for an offence he should not be permitted to hold public office.
Those convicted of corruption cannot be trusted, they are criminals in the dishonest category and should obviously not be allowed in positions they can exploit.
I would still allow them to work in municipal services however. As lavatory attendants and street cleaners.
Dear colleagues!
Thank You for Your feedback and answer question.
It seems to me the legal responsibility for corruption offences should be focused primarily on preventing the commission by the same person similar violations in the future. The number of cases of corruption will be reduced by reducing the number of persons entitled to occupy any public office and involved in unscrupulous acts. Thus not only the cost of corruption will be higher. Of course, the property qualifications of persons able to persuade the official to the side of corruption, will also be higher. But at the same time their number will decrease due to the finiteness of economic resources.
Laws banning public or municipal office after the guilty of the offence of corruption adopted in the various countries of the world. But first, unfortunately, not in all. Secondly, in those countries where such laws exist, a ban on the positions are temporary, not life.
As for cleaning the toilets, then disqualification for a corruption offence can be only additional, but not the main penalty. Another additional penalties may be extensive community service, including in the field of sanitation. The main punishment - is a fine and imprisonment.
Уважаемый Сергей!!! Безусловно, пожизненная дисквалификации лиц, совершивших преступления коррупционной направленности, находившихся на государственной или муниципальной службе, необходима. Кроме этого, необходимо избавится от понятия конфискации как иной меры уголовно-правового характера и вернуть ее в число видов наказания. При этом, в отношении коррупционеров сделать ее не дополнительным, а основным видом наказания. Кроме этого, целесообразно в отношении лиц, привлеченных к уголовной ответственности за преступления коррупционной направленности исключить действие ст.446 ГПК РФ. И в совокупности со штрафом мы может получить серьезные средства борьбы с коррупцией, вместо "смешного" приговора Васильевой и амнистии Сердюкова.
Поддерживаю. Причем не только для госслужащих, но и для юридических и физических лиц участие которых в коррупционных схемах доказано.
And I support. And not only for officials (госслужащих) but also for businesses and individuals whose participation was proved in corruption schemes.
Dr Stepanyuk is correct in suggesting that those guilty of corruption have the benefits they obtained by it confiscated.
It is not sufficient to simply ban them from public office. They should not be allowed to profit from criminality.
Доктор Степанюк абсолютно прав, утверждая, что виновные в коррупции имеют преимущества, которые они полученные ею конфискованы.
Это не достаточно, чтобы просто запретить им занимать государственные должности. Они не должны иметь возможность получать прибыль от преступности.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude