« Personal Injury Victims’ Rights Attacked In Senate
Long Overdue Introduction To Legal Blog »

Supreme Court Set To Consider Corruption Law

The US Supreme Court has taken three cases for what looks like a thorough review of a law that is essential for prosecutors to go after politicians and corporate executives that are corrupt.
The law was instrumental in prosecuting the likes of Jack Abramoff, George Ryan, Enron executives, and Rod Blagojevich to name a few. At issue, is the law’s language, which states that it is “illegal for public employees to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”  According to the Washington Post, critics of the law, most note-worth Justice Scalia, argue that the standard invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors due to simply unethical behavior.  However, as the Post points out proponents of the law counter that while the wording may be expansive its intent is not difficult to understand.
The law has been used in the prosecution of corruption cases both public and corporate for over 20 years.  And as one watchdog group put it – it is an indispensable tool for fighting public corruption and a necessary tool for federal prosecutors due to potential local hesitation in such cases.
The cases chosen by the Court involve a former Alaska Representative, former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling, and a former newspaper tycoon all serving prison time now.
By taking three different cases it may be that the Court is trying to provide clarity of the lower courts on a variety of issues related to this law.  But in any event, what two of the three cases show – and specifically Skilling’s case – are corporate criminal conduct, not an attempt to grab headlines due to simply unethical behavior.

Supreme CourtThe US Supreme Court has taken up three cases for what looks like a thorough review of a law that has been essential for prosecutors to go after politicians and corporate executives that are corrupt.

The law was instrumental in prosecuting the likes of Jack Abramoff, George Ryan, Enron executives, and Rod Blagojevich to name a few. At issue, is the law’s language, which states that it is “illegal for public employees to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”

According to the Washington Post, critics of the law, most note-worthy Justice Scalia, argue that the law’s standard invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors going after simply unethical behavior.  However, as the Post points out supporters of the law counter that while the wording may be expansive the law’s intent is not difficult to understand.

The law has been used in the prosecution of corruption cases both public and corporate for over 20 years.  And as one watchdog group put it – it is an indispensable tool for fighting public corruption and a necessary tool for federal prosecutors due to potential local hesitation in such cases.

The cases chosen by the Court involve a former Alaska Representative, former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling, and a former newspaper tycoon all serving prison time now.

By taking three different cases it may be that the Court is trying to provide clarity for the lower courts on a variety of issues.  Or maybe the new Court is trying to carve out a different approach or stand regarding corporate greed.  But in any event, what two of the three cases show – and specifically Skilling’s case – is corporate criminal conduct, not an attempt to grab headlines due to simply unethical behavior.

Tags:


This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 at 3:42 pm and is filed under Legal Update. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply