Wednesday, March 12, 2008
K-Mart, a Lead Foot, and Ethics
(Boulder-CO) The Rocky Mountain News ran a story today regarding Kenyon Martin's lead foot. With two tickets over 100 MPH anyone not of celebrity status or significant wealth would certainly, at least, lose their license, right? Sure, I think we can all agree on that. And in the eyes of the law, we are all equal regardless of one's celebrity status, right? Then why shouldn't Kenyon Martin have lost his license for having just that; two separate speeding incidents where he was traveling at speeds over 100 MPH with one being in a speed limit of just 30 miles per hour?
His lawyers claim they, "ethically, competently and aggressively represented" (Kenyon Martin).
Ethics, as defined by Websters is, "The study of moral standards and how they affect conduct."
And in this case, Kenyon's lawyers found a way to change the natural course of the judicial process so it resulted in what appears to be a favorable plea bargain. As for how this apples to ethics, if the ethical thing was for the standard course of legal action pertaining to Kenyon Martin's consequences for the speeding violations was for him to subsequently lose his license in an attempt to hopefully affect his future conduct than the system, apparently, has failed.
Vince DeCroce, director of the city attorney's prosecution section, pretty much sums it up with this statement taken from the above linked article, "All I can say is that the plea bargains that (Martin) received were outside of our normal guidelines. At a minimum . . . there's an appearance that (Martin) did receive preferential treatment."
Gee, ya think? Way to at least be politically correct about it!