> Those who see no ethical problem with small gifts to public servants should try imagining how they would feel if they were litigants in a civil trial and discovered that the judge trying the case had accepted even a free cup of coffee and a doughnut from the other party to the case. [...]
> Similarly, elected officials owe their unbiased judgment to the people who elected them. By accepting gifts, even a token gift such as a box of chocolates, they put at risk the impartiality of their judgment, thereby undermining their ethical obligation as public servants.
The example of the judge is an instructive one, although a little extreme. Due to the immense power vested in judges, even the tiniest perception of bias must be avoided.
For instance, we might find it a bit troubling if the judge in a case is golfing with one of the lawyers on the weekend while the trial is ongoing, even if no gift or consideration is involved. Judges must also take care not to comment publicly on politics and thereby threaten their independence from the executive and legislative branches of government.
In contrast, in the Winnipeg city council example the gift is from the mayor to council members - all of them. They are all elected officials, including the gift-giver, and they work together on a daily basis. In fact, they might in the normal course of their jobs declare open allegiance or opposition to the positions of another member. Unlike a judge, who is sworn to impartiality and must exercise her judgement solely based on the facts before her, politicians are elected by the public based on their express declaration of partiality to a particular set of viewpoints. If we learned that the Mayor golfs with certain city council members who are known to oppose his policies, we might commend him for reaching across the aisle and fostering dialogue.
So while elected officials must be free from bribery, I don't think it's appropriate to apply the same standard with respect to token gifts that we would apply to a judge who acts as a finder of fact within an adversarial system.
>The example of the judge is an instructive one, although a little extreme. Due to the immense power vested in judges, even the tiniest perception of bias must be avoided.
You can avoid being subject to a judge by not violating the law.
You cannot avoid being subject to the law.
If you think the "tiniest perception of bias must be avoided"for judges (who interpret the law), then the same extends to those who write it.
If you think the "tiniest perception of bias must be avoided"for judges (who interpret the law), then the same extends to those who write it.
Actually it’s not just his thoughts, it’s the ethical guidelines on the books. The same standards don’t exist for city councils, for obvious and easily comprehensible reasons.
> You can avoid being subject to a judge by not violating the law.
It’s cool that you live in that wonderful country where no one gets thrown into jail unjustly. Unfortunately I live in the United States of America, which is not that country. I have spent three days in jail for something I didn’t do. It is also probably true that everyone violates laws during the day – we simply have too many laws to avoid this from happening.
Even if you want to apply judicial ethical standards to city lawmakers, then a member of city council giving a token gift to another member of city council is most analogous to a judge on a panel giving a token gift to another judge on the same panel which... would probably be OK?
Legislators do not sit in personal, unilateral, legally binding judgement of each other, which is why their personal relationships are not analogous to that of a lawyer and a judge as the original article suggested.
It’s not a fallacy, it’s an ideal, a goal to be strived for while accepting human limitations. No one can perfectly design and build a house, but we don’t shrug and say “Perfect right angles are an illusion, enjoy your crooked house.” Besides, there are laws around this concerned with something called *the appearance of impropriety” which is to be avoided by judges, elected officials, and others. You can legitimately get yourself in deep muck, not only by being improper, but by merely seeming to be (to a reasonable person standard).
> Similarly, elected officials owe their unbiased judgment to the people who elected them. By accepting gifts, even a token gift such as a box of chocolates, they put at risk the impartiality of their judgment, thereby undermining their ethical obligation as public servants.