Today in Washington the Supreme Court passed that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions of interested parties pose as being bias. The court said that a judge who would remained involved in a litigation between a generous supporter of their campaign, would deprive the other side of their constitional right to a fair trial. It went on to mention that "just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when - without the consent of the other parties - a man chooses the judge in his own cause".This whole article is rather disturbing. Ethically you would think that the person in the higher position would make it perfectly clear that there are possibly conflicts of interest. I personally wouldn't want to be involved in anything that would cause my position to be jeopardized. I would think this would fall somewhere along the waylines of briberies.
URL:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31168141
1 comment:
I think in a lot of cases related to conflict of interest, it is left to the discretion of the individual, based on some loose guidelines, to make a determination. That, in my opinion, definitely leads to abuse and favoritism. It should be obvious that it is difficult to render fair and impartial opinions when you have a relationship with someone, or have supported them financially. It's not rocket science, and I don't know why it would be left to the individual's discretion.
Post a Comment