History of Corruption and Bribery in Pennsylvania - Case Study Example

The underlying rationale for this level of unethical behavior can be traced to the fact that the judge was being bought out by prison industries that sought to continue a high level of profitability with respect to the overall inmate populations that they house. Due to the fact that prison populations have become a multimillion-dollar a year industry for many private firms, the level of potential ethical violations that exists has exponentially increased. Unfortunately, the situation that has thus far been described is one that is likely taking place on a much more macro scale than the isolated situation that has thus far been defined. Ultimately, pay-for-prison-time schemes are likely to exist not only at the juvenile justice level but also with respect to the application of adult justice.

This particular issue is unethical in many different measurements. Firstly, the entity that was responsible for providing payment to the judge was guilty of bribery and broke the law by engaging in such a practice.

Such an issue is not new to the realm of criminal justice; as courts, jurors, judges, and elements within the prosecution or defense have had a long history of corruption and bribery; regardless of the region or legal system in question. However, the level of obvious corruption that exists within this particular case is especially troublesome due to the fact that the judge was perfectly willing to sentence first-time, and oftentimes non-violent, offenders to juvenile jail time; merely as a means of fulfilling a quota and ensuring that the kickbacks that he was receiving would continue to flow. Further, this does an injustice to society as a whole; due to the fact that individuals who might otherwise have been corrected in a less costly way were placed in detention facilities – requiring the use of public funds to support their incarceration (Davis, 2011).

With respect to what can be done as a means of curbing such unethical behavior in the courtroom, it can readily be determined that the review of such cases was incomplete. A determination of this reality is predicated upon the fact that many individuals had elevated issues and concerns to higher levels of oversight; specifically with regard to the way in which this particular judge sought to dispense justice – allowing some trials to go for only one or two minutes before making a verdict that saw first-time offenders sentenced to juvenile detention centers. However, due to the fact that these individuals were ignored, the entire checks and balance system of law did not effectively operate. Read More