The Discussion of Facts
The epidemics of ethical violations, which arise in the system of criminal justice, spread through the variety of judicial cases. The timely identification of law abuses serves as a critical measure that assists in keeping the system of criminal prosecution legal and just. In this assignment, the case of bribery violation, which was committed by a public official, is overviewed.
According to ethical observations, which were recorded in the discussion of the matrimonial litigant criminal case, it was deduced that one of the principal New York attorneys, Mr. Siminovsky, can be indicted of indirect bribery and facts’ manipulation during the trial. Specifically, the attorney of the client, Mrs. Hanimov, who was eager to return the custody of her two sons, speculated the decision of the judge by leading unethical conversations about the case and treating the latter to free meals and drinks, which might be considered as an indirect bribery. Allegedly, the attorney might have been bribed by the husband, Mr. Hanimov, who expected the court to decline his ex-wife’s plea. Despite the instance of bribery was not directly fixated, the cameras in the judge’s office proved that the parties used to lead unethical conversations about the case.
Ethical Factors in Bribery Violation
In the overviewed case, the abuse of criminal justice is evident since it is prohibited for the public officials, who are engaged in the investigation, to peer in the confidential affairs of the clients as well as manipulate specific hidden facts as the means of making a decision on the case. Thus, the recorded data revealed that the Mr. Siminovsky made visits to judge’s office, during the investigation, and recounted several stories about his client’s private life, which were meant to discourage the judge from granting custody to the woman. Moreover, it was noted, that the attorney used to bring numerous meals and drinks into the room for the judge, refusing to take any money for his treats. According to the American State Ethics Law, the behavior of Mr. Siminovsky, as well as the conduct of the judge, is proved to be unethical, because offering, soliciting, and taking any matter of value from subordinate or principal belongs to the violations of criminal justice (Penalties for violations of state ethics and public corruption laws, 2015).
The Reasoning behind the Parties’ Choices
The commitment of the illegal criminal act was provoked by unethical conduct of three parties. First, justice violation stemmed from the attorneys’ attempts to influence the decision of the judge. Apparently, this choice was previously motivated by some material reward, which was received from the interested party (Mr. Hanimov). Therefore, the attorney may be allegedly indicted of bribery and indecent protection of the rights of his client, which are harsh law violations (Abramovsky & Edelstein, 2005). Secondly, the investigation on bribery might prove Mr. Hanimov guilty of making the choice to prove his fatherly reliance in an illegal way. Finally, the judge made a decision to accept benefits from the attorney and formed his judicial decision under the subsidiary influence, which is considered to be unprofessional and unethical. Each of the three choices was motivated by material influence, except for Mr. Gampfrey’s personal interests, which pertained to the custody of his children.
The Major Effects of Criminal Justice Violation
The abuse of ethical law norms, which may be traced in the overviewed case, revealed a number of critical implications on three levels: individual, company, and social. Primarily, the manipulation of the judge’s power affected three four parties. Since the final decision was biased and followed the interests of a briber, the revelation of the investigation facts spoiled the reputation of both the judge and Mrs. Hanimov’s attorney. Secondly, the judicial choice hindered the constitutional rights of Mrs. Hanimov, who did not receive legal protection in the court and, as the outcome, lost her matrimony rights. Finally, the revelation of the bribery facts might evoke criminal responsibility for Mr. Hanimov if the factual bribery is proved in court. The procedural law abuse affected the micro-society of the court as well. Mainly, the incident questioned professional conduct of the judge and the attorney among the colleagues. Lastly, the discovery of the facts, which stimulated the investigation of ethics violations, the attitude of the society towards the concept of legal rights’ conception might be transformed since bribery evokes mistrust to public officials.
Making Ethical Choices in Criminal Procedures
The complex system of the lawful, ethical relations requires a professional attitude and work discipline. Therefore, it is possible to model a type of the case outcomes, which would be appropriate for Hanimov custody case. Primarily, in the case of receiving the things of value from any of the clients, the experienced attorney is supposed not only to turn down the offer but also to inform the briber of the criminal responsibility, which follows such acts. Concerning the behavior of the judge, in the situation, he had to explain to the attorney that facts’ speculation in court, as well as flattery and indirect bribery, may serve as the reasons for attorney’s suspension. Consequently, the observations reveal that dutiful and ethical completion of one’s duties during criminal procedures is a guarantee of public safety.
References
Abramovsky, A., & Edelstein, J. (2005). Prosecuting judges for ethical violations: Are criminal sanctions constitutional and prudent, or do they constitute a threat to judicial independence? Fordham Urban Law Journal, 33(3), 101-149.
Penalties for violations of state ethics and public corruption laws (2015). Web.