U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

ILLINOIS - STATEMENT OF PRENTICE H MARSHALL AND HARLINGTON WOOD, JR RE CHARGES OF CORRUPTION IN THE ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

NCJ Number
65154
Author(s)
P H MARSHALL; H WOOD
Date Published
1965
Length
9 pages
Annotation
THIS MINORITY REPORT BY TWO MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS CRIME INVESTIGATING COMMISSION ARGUES THAT THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE OBJECTIVELY AND FAIRLY PUBLISHED.
Abstract
THE REPORT QUOTES SECTION 6 OF THE 1963 ACT CREATING THE COMMISSION WHICH REQUIRES A DETAILED WRITTEN REPORT OF ALL COMPLETED INVESTIGATIONS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE GOVERNOR. THE REPORT ALSO ANSWERS ARGUMENTS AGAINST DISCUSSION OF CASES WHERE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST INVOLVED PAST AND PRESENT GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. THE AUTHORS CONTEND THAT THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT SUSTAIN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS NOT A MAJOR CONSIDERATION, BUT THAT THE SOLE INQUIRY SHOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDUCT IS INIMICAL TO GOVERNMENT. IN ADDITION, IF IRREPARABLE HARM IS DONE THROUGH DISCLOSURE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, THE AUTHORS ARGUE THAT IS A CONSEQUENCE INHERENT IN THE NATURE OF A BODY SUCH AS THE COMMISSION. FURTHER, EXPOSURE FOR EXPOSURE'S SAKE WAS NOT ADVOCATED. ONLY FOUR OF THE ALLEGATIONS WARRANTED DETAILED DISCUSSION AND IN EACH OF THOSE CASES THE CHARGE WAS CURRENT AND SPECIFIC, THE EVIDENCE WAS SUBSTANTIAL, THE ACCUSER COULD BE IDENTIFIED, AND THE PARTICIPANTS WERE ADVISED OF THE CHARGE AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. IN ADDITION, IDENTIFYING THE PARTICIPANTS WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE LIBEL SINCE THE MATTER WOULD BE TRUE, THE REPORT PRIVILEGED (UNLESS AUTHORS ACTED WITH MALICE), AS WERE COMMENTS ON PUBLIC OFFICIALS. THE AUTHORS ALSO ARGUE THAT THE MAJORITY REPORT, WHICH DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE FEW WHOSE CONDUCT IS QUESTIONABLE, ENHANCES RATHER THAN DISPELS DOUBT. IT IS FURTHER SUGGESTED THAT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST COVER NOT ONLY DIRECT OR INDIRECT PECUNIARY INTERESTS IN A PUBLIC CONTRACT BUT ALSO ANY PERSONAL OR PRIVATE INTERESTS THAT MAY CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED LEGISLATION. (AOP)