Question: Why are elected and appointed public officials (servants) not relieved of duty and arrested for the negligence of duty, facilitating criminal activity, violating the public trust and oath of office. No one is above the law from the President on down to a local Mayor.

Public Officials Liabilities for Prosecution.

Legislators, public employees, and other public servants may face severe consequences for violating the public trust. The range of penalties includes censure, removal from office, permanent disqualification from holding any state position, restitution, decades in prison, and fines up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Not all ethics violations are treated equally. Punishments correspond to how bad an instance of misconduct is viewed in the eyes of a state and in consideration of the harm a violation may cause. The most severe consequences are normally reserved for cases of bribery involving large sums or similar types of intentional violations of ethics or anti-corruption laws. Like most issues in ethics, however, states vary widely on the details.

The criminal justice process works separately from commissions and committees to impose punishments for wrongdoing. Each may discipline violators of ethics laws using criminal or administrative penalties, respectively, independently and concurrently, depending on the law violated.


Neglect of Duty Law and Legal Definition

Neglect of duty is the omission to perform a duty. Neglect of duty has reference to the neglect or failure on the part of a public officer to do and perform some duty or duties laid on him as such by virtue of his office or which is required of him by law. It is not material whether the neglect is willful, through malice, ignorance or oversight, when such neglect is grave and the frequency of it is such as to endanger or threaten the public welfare, it is gross. [State ex rel. Hardie v. Coleman, 115 Fla. 119 (Fla. 1934)].

Political malpractice is an instance of negligent or unethical conduct on the part of an elected official. Like medical malpractice and legal malpractice, the political type involves a breach of duty, and a failure to offer professional services as expected. This negligence usually hurts the taxpayers and citizens whom the politician is accountable to. This term is often thrown around pejoratively in political rhetoric, with politicians accusing opponents of “malpractice” when they really just mean that their opponents have made controversial decisions.

Accepting bribes is a form of political malpractice.

There are a number of different kinds of political malpractice. The most innocent, though not necessarily the least harmful, is negligence. If a politician fails to fully review a bill, for example, and it later turns out to be a disaster, this could be viewed as negligence by the voters. Negligence is sometimes paired with incompetence, an inability to perform the job. When a politician fails to adhere to an expected standard of behavior, this can also be viewed as malpractice.

Political malpractice refers to instance of unethical conduct by an elected official.

On the more sinister end of things, political malpractice can involve improper or unethical conduct undertaken deliberately. Accepting bribes is a form of malpractice, as are other activities which demonstrate favoritism to particular constituents or organizations. In some cases, this can result in criminal charges for corruption.

Citizens rely on their elected officials to advocate for them in legislative bodies, and to make good choices which will benefit their communities. When politicians fail to hold up their end of the bargain, this can have unfortunate consequences for the citizens. An accusation of political malpractice indicates that citizens are deeply unhappy with the way in which a politician has handled a situation, and it can threaten a political career.

In some cases, political malpractice can be the grounds for a tort suit. In the law, a tort is a civil wrong, and if proved, such a suit can result in fines and other consequences for the convicted party. When the citizens feel that they have experienced direct harm as a result of political malpractice, many nations allow them to bring suit against their elected officials to recover damages or remove those officials from office. Citizens can also petition their elected officials to lobby for the removal of a superior, such as a President or Prime Minister.

We cannot afford to have people in political and leadership positions that aid and abet criminals and criminal actions.