What to do with recalcitrant politicians?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


On a regular basis, I read about local politicians who either do not carry out, or actively work against, entitlement cases handed down by courts.

The typical case would be a family where a kid has special needs covered by legislation, and the court has handed down a verdict that the local political area should pay entitlement and support. Depressingly often, politicians do not comply. I even read a case where elected body of a county voted to explicitly disregard a court verdict. More insiduous tricks are to agree that a special-needs kid is entitled to special housing, but then not do anything, or offer housing alternatives that clearly are unsuitable to that kid.

Obviously, there are other types of cases also, but for some reason entitlement cases seem to be the most common.

Some time ago, Sweden enacted a law where the country can get slapped with a fine, payable by the county - not the offending politicians. The consequence is that the fine is just transferred down to the taxpayers, among them the aggrieved party. It has been suggested that the fine would be made payable by the politicians voting for an illegal suggestions, but the pols complained that it would be heavy a burden on them, and that the political system should have freedom to deal with its own dealings, and that anyway voters can make their point clear at the voting booth 3 years down the road. I do not know what, if anything, is done against this sort of politicians abroad, but I hope that you can fill me in.

I really dislike the idea of politicians going against court verdicts, and I want them to suffer some real consequences. Depending on the details of the case, I think that reasonable punishments could include:

1. Court takes money from county coffers and deals with the case itself, effectively treating the county as a deadbeat dad
2. Firing the errant politicians from the elected posts
3. Barring the errant politicians from reelection, for a set time or for life
4. Court bars errant politicians from voting, for a set time or for life.
5. Court orders other employers of part-time politicians to fire them
6. Court orders it illegal to hire errant politicians, for a set time or for life
7. Court orders it illegal by anyone, including medical professionals, family and spouses, to in any way help an errant politician
8. Court puts errant politician in jail
9. Court orders errant politician to not meet or be met by a group of people who may be assumed to give him any moral or resource-based support

Several of these listed punishments would require that the list of legal punishments was extended. However, I think that they deserve some real hammering.

So what do you think could be reasonable punishments?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Zilverzmurfen]

So what do you think could be reasonable punishments?

Public flogging..?
There's just too few medeival traditions carried out these days.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Public flogging..?
There's just too few medieval traditions carried out these days.

I take it that you think I am too harsh. I would like to point out that I did not suggest corporal punishment, and at least 1-4,6,8 already exist as penal alternatives in democratic countries today. The housing example I brought up came from Göteborgs kommun, BTW.

Do you find the present situation just fine? If not, do you find it a problem that is inherently unsolvable? If neither, what should be done about it? Remember that it is a situation where there is a huge inherent power gap, and that the crime can only be performed by the powerful against the non-powerful. In all but the most egrerious cases, punishment options 1+2+3 in the OP should be sufficient.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[lochinvar]

Summary execution.

[jBirch]

To be serious for a moment...

Laws are enacted by Parliament (or whatever the legislative body is called) and can be ignored, repealed or whatever assuming the politicos follow the rules for doing so. A vote to disregard a court ruling, for example, is essentially a special case exemption law passed by the will of the people. In that light, there should be no punishment for those politicians since they are merely exercising their legislative priviledge.

Now, in the case of a specific member going against a court order, then that member should be held to be in contempt of the court and in defiance of a court order. They should be punished as if they were a regular citizen.

The final case, is the way that it works over here. Here, the politico has no ability to reject or otherwise meddle in what is essentially a bureaucratic process. Over here a politician has appeal power, but not denial power. Ie// if you don't like what the bureaucracy has determined you can petition the elected guy for special consideration. But he can't wander down from on high and reject your claim because they're bored. If someone in the bureaucracy has a grudge against you then they get fired and or go to jail.

I've never heard of someone legit being denied service over here deliberately. The departments of government comply with court orders when they receive them.

I think it's illegal over here for the member to interfere like that, but I'm really not sure. I think it falls afoul of our ethics legislation and/or "trust of the government". At the least it's a field day for the opposition parties and the media on a par with any other scandal or corruption.

Hope this helps.

James.

[Epee_Pox]

The way it works in the US, the courts have the final say as to what the law requires. So if the law says "you must do X," and a local government refuses to do X, then the courts order that X be done. If the local officials refuse to do it anyway, then the courts can hold the officials in contempt, and can fine the officials and put them in jail until such time as they do what they're supposed to do.

In addition, they can be sued by those who are harmed by the inaction, for failing to perform an affirmative duty, and can be liable for money damages to compensate those harmed.

Also, they can be prosecuted (depending on the individual state's criminal laws) for obstructing the administration of government, and can be fined and imprisoned all over again.

And of course they can always be impeached, censured, removed and/or not re-elected as well.

The way it usually works out, the court issues an order, and it's done. We almost never get to the next step.

[JasminaJ]

I say feed them to the sharks!

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

The way it works in the US, the courts have the final say as to what the law requires. So if the law says "you must do X," and a local government refuses to do X, then the courts order that X be done. If the local officials refuse to do it anyway, then the courts can hold the officials in contempt, and can fine the officials and put them in jail until such time as they do what they're supposed to do.
<SNIP>

The way it usually works out, the court issues an order, and it's done. We almost never get to the next step.

Good!

If only there were some real teeth behind the elected miscreants over here. Never vote for anyone who wants to dilute those laws!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

To be serious for a moment...

Laws are enacted by Parliament (or whatever the legislative body is called) and can be ignored, repealed or whatever assuming the politicos follow the rules for doing so. A vote to disregard a court ruling, for example, is essentially a special case exemption law passed by the will of the people. In that light, there should be no punishment for those politicians since they are merely exercising their legislative priviledge.

Now I do not understand what you are saying. Do you mean that the sentence in bold is how it is specified and done in the Canadian legal system, that it is how you want it to be, or something else?

What do you mean with "ignored" in this context? Should the politicians not even have to bother with repealment of laws that they do not like?
If a political body can vote to disregard a court ruling, then what checks does the Judicial branch have on the other branches? Or do you think that the Judicial branch has too much power as it is, and that its checks should be curbed?

Now, in the case of a specific member going against a court order, then that member should be held to be in contempt of the court and in defiance of a court order. They should be punished as if they were a regular citizen.

So, what are appropriate punishments in you personal view?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

The punishments must be meaningful to the recipients. Fines are useless, for example, they can just hold a $500 a plate dinner and be ahead of the game again. Although making them write a check to their opponent's campaign fund might hurt sufficiently...

I'm thinking something like: House arrest, ie no junkets, vacations or trips to the home district. Better still, house arrest somewhere far more utilitarian than the legislator's own doubtless comfortable abode.

Maybe forcing the legislator to sit in his or her particular chamber of the Congress, listening to the interminal tedious speeches of colleagues ( which are usually made to all but empty rooms, just for the benefit of the cameras ).

[Feltan]

The way it works in the US, the courts have the final say as to what the law requires. So if the law says "you must do X," and a local government refuses to do X, then the courts order that X be done. If the local officials refuse to do it anyway, then the courts can hold the officials in contempt, and can fine the officials and put them in jail until such time as they do what they're supposed to do...

Unless you are talking about the highest level of executive power -- who on occasion simply refuse to enforce a given law. That has been a tradition since the time of Andrew Jackson. To wit: "Well: John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!"

Regards,
Feltan