Part 1: Situation Definition
While attending the Foster-Foreman Conference speaker session that Miami Herald reporter Julie Brown spoke at, one intense ethical message that I got was the importance of transparency between local authorities and the public. Brown talked about the story she wrote about Jeffery Epstein and how it was not the first time his name had come up in connection with sex trafficking. Epstein’s name had come up before but the local authorities in Florida just pushed the trial into a plea deal before the victims could testify.
The ethical issue is that these local authorities did not allow the victims to have a fair trial or the chance to defend themselves in court. However, Epstein was able to unethically get a solid plea deal where he was able to live comfortable behind bars. This issue allowed for Epstein to partly control his punishment for what he did and the victims were not really able to do anything about it.
The second ethical message I got from Brown’s talk at the Foster-Foreman Conference was even if you did not commit the crime you’re still responsible for what happened if you knew about it. Brown talked about how other people had to know what Epstein was doing behind the scenes by sex trafficking and ethically they should have been held responsible for what he did. Even though they did not personally commit the crime, they probably knew about it so they ethically had the responsibility to report what was going on to the local authorities.
The part that stuck with me was just how many people Epstein trafficked and the number of people that knew about it. The number of people he trafficked was well into the hundreds and maybe even higher. It shocked me and made me sad to hear about those numbers and to know that certain people who knew about it didn’t do anything about it. Brown was only able to talk to a number of the victims for the story so there were so many victims of what Epstein did, who did not get the chance to tell their story.
Part 2: Analysis
Fair Trial as the foundation for Court Ethics, which was written by Boris Ljubannovic, talks about the ethics in the Republic of Croatia. The journal article outlines what the rules are in court in Croatia and how the country implements the rules. What connects the courts in Croatia and the courts in the United States is that they’re rules in place before a case is tried and the rules are suppose to be followed.
However, that was not the case with the Epstein trial. If you compare what happened with the Epstein trial and what the rules in court are in any country, then Epstein should’ve been tried differently in court. The way that he was tried in court does not align with what is stated in the laws of any court in the world. What happened with Epstein is not suppose to be able to happen with the rules that are in place.
Ethical Conduct in International Criminal Courts: Whose Ethics?, which was written by Elena Cima and Makane Moise Mbengue, talks about the ethics in courts internationally. Depending on which country you are in the ethical standards in courts are different but wherever you go, there is a baseline. The baseline is the set of rules that everyone must follow in court in every country. No matter what country you are in, when you are in that country’s court you must follow those court’s rules.
The challenge is understanding which courts favor which ethics. Since each country’s court system is a little bit different than it is difficult to know exactly what to expect in every court around the world. But in the United States where Epstein’s case was tried there is a law that every citizen has the right to a fair trial. And that did not happen for the victims of Epstein.
The International Criminal Court’s Authority Crisis and Kant’s Political Ethics, which was written by Antonio Francescket, talks about international criminal courts and how that relates to Kant’s political teachings. While I think there is a connection between the two, I think with the Epstein case that Kant’s political ethics should only be one part of the solution. With the Epstein case there was so many variables that were never presented in court and I think if they were then the trial may have ended differently.
I would recommend when dealing with an ethical issue like this to look at both sides of the issue before making a decision. The decision should be based on the evidence that has been presented and not on who has the better defense team. Either way it will be a challenge but I think the final decision should be based on facts.
Part 3: Conclusion
One lesson I learned from listening to Brown talk at the conference was patience when reporting on a sensitive topic like the Epstein trial. The Epstein trial was complicated and is still a difficult topic to understand but I think by Brown waiting until years after she found out about the initial tip she got about the story, she was able to tell a more complete story. She also was able to wait for the victims to be ready to share their story. Waiting for the right time was something she talked a lot about at the conference.
It is still important to discuss the issues because they’re still happening today. The ethical challenges that Epstein abused is something that others will try in the future and we need to be aware of that moving forward. If we don’t continue to place an importance on ethics than things will leak through the system and people will get away with things they shouldn’t get away with. We have to continue to focus on ethics and learning more about ethical procedures.
Part 4: References
Ethical Conduct in International Criminal Courts: Whose Ethics? (2019). A Focus on Ethics in International Courts and Tribunals. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/ethical-conduct-in-international-criminal-courts-whose-ethics/FF38686AAE3A88B4DADE3D6DCED690FE
Fair Trial as the Foundation for Court Ethics. (2012). Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Splitu. Retrieved from https://doaj.org/article/c2be06361c654d789008a56c131be0a9
Francescket, A. (2016). The International Criminal Court’s Authority Crisis and Kant’s Political Ethics. International Criminal Law Review. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=066c01b9-d5cf-436d-96d2-e1860712b548@sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=115042280&db=a9h