skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 65154 Find in a Library
Title: ILLINOIS - STATEMENT OF PRENTICE H MARSHALL AND HARLINGTON WOOD, JR RE CHARGES OF CORRUPTION IN THE ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Author(s): P H MARSHALL; H WOOD
Corporate Author: Illinois Crime Investigating Cmssn
United States of America
Date Published: 1965
Page Count: 9
Sponsoring Agency: Illinois Crime Investigating Cmssn
Chicago, IL 60606
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
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)
Index Term(s): Abuse of authority; Conflict of interest; Corruption of public officials; Illinois; White collar crime
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=65154

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.