In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

229 9 Preserving Trust in Government Public Corruption and the Court Nancy E. Marion Political corruption by public officials is not a new phenomenon. Corrupt behavior has been part of government for many years, and unfortunately, no level of leadership is immune from the questionable behavior of politicians. Generally speaking, corruption involves the abuse of public office for private benefit or personal gain. It is the manipulation of power or public trust by those elected or appointed to office.1 It occurs when politicians use the power of their office for their own advantage, for example, to raise money for a campaign or increase their income.2 Corrupt behavior can involve requiring subordinates to perform certain tasks that enhance the officeholder personally rather than to carry out the duties of the office. It can also be breaking rules or laws concerning the proper exercise of public duties for personal or private gain. In the end, the corrupt behavior undermines the standards of integrity associated with public office. Today, those accused of political corruption are often charged with federal offenses. The cases are heard in district courts around the country, which are the trial-level courts for the federal judicial system. 230 Nancy E. Marion Federal Role Increased Until the twentieth century, cases concerning political corruption were prosecuted in state courts after the accused were indicted for theft or other similar charges. However, in more recent times, individuals charged with acts of political corruption have increasingly been indicted at the federal level, with their cases being heard in a federal district court. The charges are usually for crimes such as racketeering, mail fraud, bribery, contempt, or theft of office. Such changes have altered the role of the court, and beyond that, they have altered the way people view the role of the federal court in dealing with public corruption. In the past, people did not expect the federal courts to weed out corruption by politicians, but today, they see the federal courts as being responsible for determining the truth behind allegations of corruption by their elected officials. There are many arguments for a more active federal role in prosecuting political corruption, as opposed to the state prosecution. One is simply that, in many situations, state and local prosecutors are too close to those accused of wrongdoing, making a full investigation of the alleged illegal acts difficult. And local law enforcement may be reluctant to handle high-profile crimes or crimes committed by famous people. In these situations, federal officials can more easily investigate criminal charges because they do not have personal or professional relationships with those involved. Second, federal officials have more money and other resources than state officials to investigate and prosecute allegations against elected officials. Most states are limited in regard to how many individuals and how much money they have available to investigate criminal charges. The federal government does not face those same resource limitations . Third, many local jurisdictions are less capable of handling technically sophisticated or prolonged investigations, such as complex financial or electronic investigations. Fourth, federal judges are appointed for life, giving them more independence than state judges, who must seek election and reelection . Consequently, federal judges have more independence to prosecute political wrongdoers. A fifth reason for having the federal government prosecute corruption is that a more active federal involvement can lead to more consistency and equality from one state to the next. Some states have more resources than others and are therefore more apt to pursue criminal allegations than those with more 231 Preserving Trust in Government limited resources. Increased federal involvement would help guarantee that all public officials accused of crimes would be investigated to the fullest extent possible. Sixth, increased federal responsibility can be a complement to state law enforcement, allowing local officials to enhance their resources.3 Finally, federal involvement in corruption cases is sometimes needed because many offenders cross state lines or political boundaries. At the same time, arguments can be made against the expanded role of the federal court. Federal involvement may mean that the states have less power to decide issues in their own territories.4 When the right or ability of state and local officials to make policy decisions affecting their neighborhoods shifts to the federal government, federal power is increased and the ability of the states to respond to problems as they see fit is decreased. The...

Share