Introduction
In the US, judicial corruption and bribery are major problems. According to the Sixth Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, everyone has the right to a speedy and fair trial (Esterle et al., 2020). Unfortunately, the American court system has historically overlooked fundamental liberties. The system is plagued by several corruption scandals, and most people may be unaware of how widespread corruption is in US courts (Esterle et al., 2020). When people think of the judicial system, they often associate it with fairness, morality, and justice. The scenario is defined differently in most US courts than it is in these words. The legal system is more accurately described as having manipulated courts, corruption, phony trials, and extortion.
Discussion
Former Texas judge Rodolfo Delgado is a prime example of a judge breaching a litigant’s entitlement to due process. He was found guilty of accepting bribes from a Texas lawyer to obtain a favorable judgment in the Hidalgo courthouse. Moreover, Judge Rodolfo was found guilty of committing eight charges, such as conspiracy, obstruction, and bribery (Maierhofer et al., 2020). Judge Bennet directed Rodolfo to serve a jail term of two years of administered or supervised release immediately after coming out of prison. Bribery in courts is discussed in this section within the context of judicial ethics. Some of the judicial ethics involved in the case scenario were the exploitation of the judge’s position to grant favors and the taking of bribes.
The effects of the misleading methods mentioned above rely on culture, authenticity, and morality. Rodolfo is a prime illustration of judges’ wrongdoings, as it was his duty to make sure that those who broke the law were punished. However, he chose to take a bribe and rule out in favor of the accused. The situation developed because some of the judges are known for taking bribes. The general public will suspect the judges when such exercises occur from a cultural perspective. Whenever there is such public suspicion, people begin to ridicule the law and the general public (Pratama, 2020). As a result, working together to combat violence in the general public becomes challenging for both the public and the judiciary.
One of the ideas that might be utilized to elucidate the potential origin of Rodolfo’s corruption problems is the Public Choice theorem. An individual becomes corrupted when they make legitimate decisions that lead to predictable outcomes. The corrupted party is frequently presented as a rational being that considers their alternatives and chooses to become corrupt (Penmetsa & Pulugurtha, 2020). When the expected benefits of corruption outweigh the predicted disadvantages of getting caught and the associated punishments, corruption occurs. According to public choice theory, a person’s purposeful, aware, and logical weighing processes and procedures lead to the conduct of corrupt public workers or authorities (Pratama, 2020). When the public loses faith in the government’s ability to oversee and regulate private property transactions, corruption will become common and evident.
When an organization is operating normally, people find themselves in a smooth grade, forming plans and interacting in ways that may develop corrupt motives. A demand for modifying established procedures to UN-normalize corruption reinforces a conceptualization of the issue that goes beyond an individualist and moralist perspective of the issue. One of the brave witnesses in the Rodolfo court corruption case that stood out was Noe Perez. He stated in his report that the typical range of bribes offered by Rodolfo is between $260 and $6,600 (Fastiuk et al., 2021). Despite being imprisoned with Rodolfo, Perez bravely testified against him and uncovered the corruption charge.
Conclusion
A crucial component of any open, free society that is all too frequently marred by corruption is an independent, transparent, and competent court. The worldwide community now has the chance to shed light on corrupt judges all around the world since the fight against corruption is being given more attention. The fight against judicial corruption has a favorable effect on efforts to lessen bribery and corruption in general. Fighting corruption is considerably more difficult to do when there is not an open judiciary.
References
Esterle, K., Gressenbuch, L., & Knoll, A. (2020). Formalizing traffic rules for machine interpretability. 2020 IEEE 3rd Connected and Automated Vehicles Symposium (CAVS), 1–8. Web.
Fastiuk, Y., Bachynskyy, R., & Huzynets, N. (2021). Methods of vehicle recognition and detecting traffic rules violations on a motion picture based on OpenCV framework. Advances in Cyber-Physical Systems, 6(2), 105–111. Web.
Maierhofer, S., Rettinger, A.-K., Mayer, E. C., & Althoff, M. (2020). Formalization of interstate traffic rules in temporal logic. 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 1–9. Web.
Penmetsa, P., & Pulugurtha, S. S. (2020). Risk perceptions of crash-related traffic rule violations. Journal of Road Safety, 31(4), 4–12. Web.
Pratama, F. (2020). Managing informants in handling corruption by the corruption unit of the criminal investigation department of the lebak police resort. Management Technology and Security International Journal, 1(1), 1–10. Web.