Is there an example that stands out?
After investigation, he was 'forced into retirement'. So basically he accepted bribery (which I'm sure he didn't classify correctly on his bank statements, meaning money laundering and wire fraud) and didn't have to pay anything back, didn't get charged with anything and kept his career. His 'punishment' is having to continue to get paid... while keeping the money.
Example 2: Naval director extorts money from subordinates: he faced a single 'letter of counseling' telling him his failures. He didn't pay back the money he received and faced no financial, career or other punishments. And that is AFTER being caught.
And to be clear, these two examples are taken from a document produced by the US Government to warn employees of the dangers of misbehaving. Imagine the cases they felt were too lenient to include in the book!
- what page?
(EDIT) page 5: 5brother-in-law as contractors. Colonel 2 even attempted to get his own son hired as a contractor, but Colonel 2’s supervisor correctly thought it would be inappropriate. Each colonel was issued a letter of caution to avoid an appearance of a conflictand they were required to take an annual ethics training course. Chief AuthorityA military service Chief Master Sergeant abused her authority and improperly used a government vehicle when she employed a government vehicle and three non-commissioned officers under her supervision to move personal property in a government rental vehicle. The soldiers helped her for 3 hours. The Chief Master Sergeant was given a verbal warning and advised of the improper use of government vehicles and the abuse of authority. Abuse of Position and BriberyA military service Captain used his official position as a reservist to obtain contracts for private sector companies with which he had an affiliation. In addition, the Captain accepted a “finder’s fee” (i.e., kickbacks) from one company for his efforts in helping thecompany obtain government contract work. For his significant ethical failure, the Captain was “allowed” to retire at the grade of Commander, though he had been selected to be an Admiral. In addition, the Captain was debarred for one year, while two of the affiliated companies entered into administrative agreements (for 3 years) with the military service.
-- what's the pay difference between commander and admiral? This looks like a standard white collar slap on the wrist.
I truly wonder though what leads a person to believe that corporate employees getting caught in bribery and kick backs leads to them 'getting demoted'. It's a 'standard' story of a 'slap on the wrist'. Yeah, because courts order that all the time: this executive bribed the government? He will now be a junior executive. So has the court commanded... I don't even know how this could be a thing someone could imagine... to me it's hilarious. It's so evidently false.
I'm also totally shocked at how some people will deny something, and when proven wrong, they pick at the proof by trying to diminish it without challenging it or acknowledging that they had the oposite view just a minute ago.
It's like there is a percentage of the population incapable of admitting being in the wrong.
Talk equal to equal.
The example provided is what happens to government officials when they are caught AND punished. I the frequency of getting caught was never mentioned, it's something you brought up.
The topic here is leniency.
Do you really think a small demotion within a company is the reaction of the legal team of say, facebook, to such things?
I mean imagine the Director of Marketing getting kick backs from companies he recommends to the board. And when caught, he is not fired, doesn't have to pay back anything and only suffers a 30% paycut.
It is my understanding that when a large corporation has an officer unjust enriching himself by securing kick backs from companies, they engage in a civil lawsuit.
This would result in an amount considerably larger than the amount received from enrichment being placed in judgement against a defendant.
It would also create a discovery process which would basically mean a made case for a DA, who may and likely will prosecute. A first time offender will likely have minimal if any jail, but they would have a criminal record.
The employee in question would undoubtedly lose his job and all benefits.
How could you compare these two?
The fact that white collar crime is unjustly lenient vs street crime has no bearing on the unjust lenience of private vs public sector employee misconduct. This reddit style 'whatabboutism' is really tiring.
So you've got a book that's convinced you that it's easy to be unethical and not get punished for it in government positions. My point is that corruption and nepotism are not a "government" problem so much as a "human institutions" problem.
Whether you believe it's a human problem or a government problem has major implications for policy response: Do you reduce government function, or try to install better safeguards? My position is that it's definitely not just a government problem, and that 30 years of responding as though it WERE just a government problem has in fact just hidden the issues in the (far more opaque) private sector.
I interpret "Whattaboutism" as an argument that it's OK for Group A to engage in an unethical action because Group B does as well (perhaps even while overlooking differences of scale or context). This is not my point, nor is it a position I condone.
Sure. But no one said anything to the contrary.
I said: Government employees get unjust leniency compared to private enterprise when caught in unethical behavior. I then gave an example to back up my claim (with examples and high trust references)
You posted, and continue to post: "But WHAT ABOUT private sector misheavior, private sector does bad too!" And: "But WHAT ABOUT the good government employees, most are good" "But WHAT ABOUT the privatization of things that are going wrong"
Which are excellent statements to be made on their own. I actually happen to agree with you, I dislike a lot of privatization that is happening. But they are a poor reply to a point that doesn't mention anything about private vs public.
Whataboutism has the following pattern:
Person 1 posts a fact: leniency toward government official misbehavior.
Person 2 posts a fact: private enterprise is less transparent than government enterprise.
The fact doesn't contradict the first directly, but it came across as a rebuttal.
It's throwing true facts out there that sort of contradict a point without having to actually address the point being made or take a stance or define a clear point which could then receive a counterpoint.
A counter point to be made could be: Well, I believe government employee misconduct is more easily spotted and therefore a lenient treatment might be justified.
See? That's an actual counter point. I can then say: 'Well, let's look at the statistics of corruption in each and convictions and we can prove the point one way or another'.
But what you posted... can never be answered in a way that furthers the finding of the truth. It is 'anti government people' vs 'pro government people'. It's tribalistic, many people here seem to have placed me in the anti government field because I posted 1 thing that reflects badly on public servants.
I'm neither pro gov nor anti gov and I'd appreciate it both parties could find a place to battle it out that wasn't my point, which neither supports nor disproves either side. My point is that this (unjust sector leniency) is an issue and it should be more widely known. You are welcome to answer with a counter point. I'm pro-dialectics and will change my mind if given good points with proper references or logical constructs.
I'll re-post the text as the egrecious stuff was mixed in with other non egregious stuff by pnutjam, who stated this case is 'standard for white collar crime' in private enterprise:
>> Abuse of Position and BriberyA military service Captain used his official position as a reservist to obtain contracts for private sector companies with which he had an affiliation. In addition, the Captain accepted a “finder’s fee” (i.e., kickbacks) from one company for his efforts in helping the company obtain government contract work. For his significant ethical failure, the Captain was “allowed” to retire at the grade of Commander, though he had been selected to be an Admiral.
No fees. No restitution. No jail. No charges even.
He had to endure the 'horrors' of retirement with full benefits. Though he was 'severely punish' with not getting his promotion.