This week, two boys in Florida were tried for the bludgeoning-murder of their father. With accusations raised of the actual killing to have been done by another, adult male with alleged sexual ties to the two boys,
the boys were found guilty only of a lesser second-degree murder charge, claiming the adult must have done the actual deed... yet the jury was unaware the adult accused and being tried for that very idea was
acquitted of all charges the previous week. The issue? Both trials were handled by the same prosecutor
who presented completely different theories to each jury... in other words, not settling on a confident belief of who actually performed the killing, the prosecution tried to get both the adult and the pair of boys convicted for it. Isn't that risky? Or, if you like a different flavor of debate, isn't that completely unethical?
posted by XQUZYPHYR
on Sep 7, 2002 -
40 comments
It's the clothes. A fashion columnist in
The Washington Post blames corporate scandals on business-casual clothes, which lead to casual ethics.
posted by kirkaracha
on Jul 5, 2002 -
30 comments
Convict Heart Transplant A 31 year old 2 time felon just got a heart transplant, costing tax payers close to $1 million dollars. With an annual additional cost of $15,000.
Right? Wrong? I'm not so sure.
posted by SuzySmith
on Jan 30, 2002 -
15 comments
Confidentiality. A lot of people would probably expect such a conversation to be confidential, although that is neither
promised by the web site nor apparently
required of their operators.
The TV news here in Melbourne covered the story this morning and skirted the subject of confidentiality, but Wired has an interesting piece. The New Zealand Herald has an edited transcript in the first of it's articles.
There's an uproar if a doctor or a priest breaks a confidence, even if it leads to a murder being solved. Why so little fuss here?
posted by southisup
on Mar 29, 2001 -
6 comments
A Clarification -- Dave Eggers wants to expose the process, "By reprinting your correspondence to me I hope to illuminate the journalist's mind: how a writer starts by telling me he is a fan of my work, supports my company's endeavors, etc, then writes a snippety little thing full of sneering and suspicion." so he's posted ALL of the email correspondance he had with david kirkpatrick before
this unflattering piece was printed... and after.
"I think it's important that our exchange be published. It's the only remedy commensurate with the impact you enjoyed with your original piece. I want your friends and family to see it, and to say 'David, ew.'"
Meanspirited all around, but can you blame him?
posted by palegirl
on Feb 22, 2001 -
43 comments
John Stossel Reprimanded but not Fired by ABC - It is not exactly
new information that Stossel has a habit of distorting facts and misleading the public. However, in this case he apparently thought he could get away with fabricating two complete sets of lab results related to food safety. Willingly disseminating false health information strikes me as a serious breach of journalistic ethics. In any case, ABC thinks a slap on the wrist will suffice, and tonight Stossel is expected to make an on-air apology. Will he admit he lied or blame an intern?
posted by johnb
on Aug 11, 2000 -
11 comments
This story is *actually* about Lexis, who got their case file in the first place by stealing it from West, suing Jurisline, who in turn bought their CD's and mounted them on a free website, and winning.
Lawyers, in particular, may find this one interesting...
posted by baylink
on Jun 21, 2000 -
0 comments
