Questões Militares Sobre inglês

    Police and Human Rights – Manual for Police Training

How can respecting human rights help the police? 

Respect for human rights by law enforcement agencies actually enhances the effectiveness of those agencies. Where human rights are systematically respected, police officers have developed professionalism in their approaches to solving and preventing crime and maintaining public order. In this sense, respect for human rights by police is, in addition to being a moral, legal and ethical imperative, also a practical requirement for law enforcement. When the police are seen to respect, uphold and defend human rights: 

• Public confidence is built and community cooperation fostered.

• Legal prosecutions are successful in court. • Police are seen as part of the community, performing a valuable social function.

• The fair administration of justice is served, and, consequently, confidence in the system.

• An example is set for respect for the law by others in the society.

• Police are able to be closer to the community, and, therefore, in a position to prevent and solve crimes through proactive policing.

• Support is elicited from the media, from the international community, and from higher authorities.

• A contribution is made to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and complaints. 

An effective police service is one that serves as the first line of defense in the protection of human rights. Its members carry out their work in a way, which does not rely upon fear and raw power but, on the contrary, is based on regard for the law, honor, and professionalism. 

What role does training play in protecting human rights?

The effective training of police in human rights is an essential element in the global efforts to promote and protect human rights in every country. In order to protect human rights, the police must first know and understand them. Furthermore, police officers must be familiar with the various international guidelines and bodies of principles – such as the Code of Conduct for law enforcement officials and the principles on the use of force and firearms – and be able to use them as tools in their everyday work. They must understand the fact that international human rights standards concerning their work were developed to provide invaluable guidance for the performance of their crucial functions in a democratic society. However, police officers in the line of duty should know not only what the rules are, but also how to do their job effectively within the confines of those rules.

Most people have heard the argument that respect for human rights is somehow opposed to effective law enforcement. And effective law enforcement means to capture the criminal. And to secure his conviction, it is necessary to “bend the rules” a little. A tendency to use overwhelming force in controlling demonstrations, physical pressure to extract information from detainees, or excessive force to secure an arrest can be observed now and then. In this way of thinking, law enforcement is a war against crime, and human rights are merely obstacles thrown in the path of the police by lawyers and NGOs. In fact, violations of human rights ––78–––– police only make the already challenging task of law enforcement ––– 79––– . When the law enforcer ––– 80––– the lawbreaker, the result is an assault on human dignity, on the law itself and on all institutions of public authority.

                                                         (G. Kalajdziev, et al. www.humanrights.dk. Adaptado.)

    Police and Human Rights – Manual for Police Training

How can respecting human rights help the police? 

Respect for human rights by law enforcement agencies actually enhances the effectiveness of those agencies. Where human rights are systematically respected, police officers have developed professionalism in their approaches to solving and preventing crime and maintaining public order. In this sense, respect for human rights by police is, in addition to being a moral, legal and ethical imperative, also a practical requirement for law enforcement. When the police are seen to respect, uphold and defend human rights: 

• Public confidence is built and community cooperation fostered.

• Legal prosecutions are successful in court. • Police are seen as part of the community, performing a valuable social function.

• The fair administration of justice is served, and, consequently, confidence in the system.

• An example is set for respect for the law by others in the society.

• Police are able to be closer to the community, and, therefore, in a position to prevent and solve crimes through proactive policing.

• Support is elicited from the media, from the international community, and from higher authorities.

• A contribution is made to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and complaints. 

An effective police service is one that serves as the first line of defense in the protection of human rights. Its members carry out their work in a way, which does not rely upon fear and raw power but, on the contrary, is based on regard for the law, honor, and professionalism. 

What role does training play in protecting human rights?

The effective training of police in human rights is an essential element in the global efforts to promote and protect human rights in every country. In order to protect human rights, the police must first know and understand them. Furthermore, police officers must be familiar with the various international guidelines and bodies of principles – such as the Code of Conduct for law enforcement officials and the principles on the use of force and firearms – and be able to use them as tools in their everyday work. They must understand the fact that international human rights standards concerning their work were developed to provide invaluable guidance for the performance of their crucial functions in a democratic society. However, police officers in the line of duty should know not only what the rules are, but also how to do their job effectively within the confines of those rules.

Most people have heard the argument that respect for human rights is somehow opposed to effective law enforcement. And effective law enforcement means to capture the criminal. And to secure his conviction, it is necessary to “bend the rules” a little. A tendency to use overwhelming force in controlling demonstrations, physical pressure to extract information from detainees, or excessive force to secure an arrest can be observed now and then. In this way of thinking, law enforcement is a war against crime, and human rights are merely obstacles thrown in the path of the police by lawyers and NGOs. In fact, violations of human rights ––78–––– police only make the already challenging task of law enforcement ––– 79––– . When the law enforcer ––– 80––– the lawbreaker, the result is an assault on human dignity, on the law itself and on all institutions of public authority.

                                                         (G. Kalajdziev, et al. www.humanrights.dk. Adaptado.)

    Police and Human Rights – Manual for Police Training

How can respecting human rights help the police? 

Respect for human rights by law enforcement agencies actually enhances the effectiveness of those agencies. Where human rights are systematically respected, police officers have developed professionalism in their approaches to solving and preventing crime and maintaining public order. In this sense, respect for human rights by police is, in addition to being a moral, legal and ethical imperative, also a practical requirement for law enforcement. When the police are seen to respect, uphold and defend human rights: 

• Public confidence is built and community cooperation fostered.

• Legal prosecutions are successful in court. • Police are seen as part of the community, performing a valuable social function.

• The fair administration of justice is served, and, consequently, confidence in the system.

• An example is set for respect for the law by others in the society.

• Police are able to be closer to the community, and, therefore, in a position to prevent and solve crimes through proactive policing.

• Support is elicited from the media, from the international community, and from higher authorities.

• A contribution is made to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and complaints. 

An effective police service is one that serves as the first line of defense in the protection of human rights. Its members carry out their work in a way, which does not rely upon fear and raw power but, on the contrary, is based on regard for the law, honor, and professionalism. 

What role does training play in protecting human rights?

The effective training of police in human rights is an essential element in the global efforts to promote and protect human rights in every country. In order to protect human rights, the police must first know and understand them. Furthermore, police officers must be familiar with the various international guidelines and bodies of principles – such as the Code of Conduct for law enforcement officials and the principles on the use of force and firearms – and be able to use them as tools in their everyday work. They must understand the fact that international human rights standards concerning their work were developed to provide invaluable guidance for the performance of their crucial functions in a democratic society. However, police officers in the line of duty should know not only what the rules are, but also how to do their job effectively within the confines of those rules.

Most people have heard the argument that respect for human rights is somehow opposed to effective law enforcement. And effective law enforcement means to capture the criminal. And to secure his conviction, it is necessary to “bend the rules” a little. A tendency to use overwhelming force in controlling demonstrations, physical pressure to extract information from detainees, or excessive force to secure an arrest can be observed now and then. In this way of thinking, law enforcement is a war against crime, and human rights are merely obstacles thrown in the path of the police by lawyers and NGOs. In fact, violations of human rights ––78–––– police only make the already challenging task of law enforcement ––– 79––– . When the law enforcer ––– 80––– the lawbreaker, the result is an assault on human dignity, on the law itself and on all institutions of public authority.

                                                         (G. Kalajdziev, et al. www.humanrights.dk. Adaptado.)

    Police and Human Rights – Manual for Police Training

How can respecting human rights help the police? 

Respect for human rights by law enforcement agencies actually enhances the effectiveness of those agencies. Where human rights are systematically respected, police officers have developed professionalism in their approaches to solving and preventing crime and maintaining public order. In this sense, respect for human rights by police is, in addition to being a moral, legal and ethical imperative, also a practical requirement for law enforcement. When the police are seen to respect, uphold and defend human rights: 

• Public confidence is built and community cooperation fostered.

• Legal prosecutions are successful in court. • Police are seen as part of the community, performing a valuable social function.

• The fair administration of justice is served, and, consequently, confidence in the system.

• An example is set for respect for the law by others in the society.

• Police are able to be closer to the community, and, therefore, in a position to prevent and solve crimes through proactive policing.

• Support is elicited from the media, from the international community, and from higher authorities.

• A contribution is made to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and complaints. 

An effective police service is one that serves as the first line of defense in the protection of human rights. Its members carry out their work in a way, which does not rely upon fear and raw power but, on the contrary, is based on regard for the law, honor, and professionalism. 

What role does training play in protecting human rights?

The effective training of police in human rights is an essential element in the global efforts to promote and protect human rights in every country. In order to protect human rights, the police must first know and understand them. Furthermore, police officers must be familiar with the various international guidelines and bodies of principles – such as the Code of Conduct for law enforcement officials and the principles on the use of force and firearms – and be able to use them as tools in their everyday work. They must understand the fact that international human rights standards concerning their work were developed to provide invaluable guidance for the performance of their crucial functions in a democratic society. However, police officers in the line of duty should know not only what the rules are, but also how to do their job effectively within the confines of those rules.

Most people have heard the argument that respect for human rights is somehow opposed to effective law enforcement. And effective law enforcement means to capture the criminal. And to secure his conviction, it is necessary to “bend the rules” a little. A tendency to use overwhelming force in controlling demonstrations, physical pressure to extract information from detainees, or excessive force to secure an arrest can be observed now and then. In this way of thinking, law enforcement is a war against crime, and human rights are merely obstacles thrown in the path of the police by lawyers and NGOs. In fact, violations of human rights ––78–––– police only make the already challenging task of law enforcement ––– 79––– . When the law enforcer ––– 80––– the lawbreaker, the result is an assault on human dignity, on the law itself and on all institutions of public authority.

                                                         (G. Kalajdziev, et al. www.humanrights.dk. Adaptado.)

    Police and Human Rights – Manual for Police Training

How can respecting human rights help the police? 

Respect for human rights by law enforcement agencies actually enhances the effectiveness of those agencies. Where human rights are systematically respected, police officers have developed professionalism in their approaches to solving and preventing crime and maintaining public order. In this sense, respect for human rights by police is, in addition to being a moral, legal and ethical imperative, also a practical requirement for law enforcement. When the police are seen to respect, uphold and defend human rights: 

• Public confidence is built and community cooperation fostered.

• Legal prosecutions are successful in court. • Police are seen as part of the community, performing a valuable social function.

• The fair administration of justice is served, and, consequently, confidence in the system.

• An example is set for respect for the law by others in the society.

• Police are able to be closer to the community, and, therefore, in a position to prevent and solve crimes through proactive policing.

• Support is elicited from the media, from the international community, and from higher authorities.

• A contribution is made to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and complaints. 

An effective police service is one that serves as the first line of defense in the protection of human rights. Its members carry out their work in a way, which does not rely upon fear and raw power but, on the contrary, is based on regard for the law, honor, and professionalism. 

What role does training play in protecting human rights?

The effective training of police in human rights is an essential element in the global efforts to promote and protect human rights in every country. In order to protect human rights, the police must first know and understand them. Furthermore, police officers must be familiar with the various international guidelines and bodies of principles – such as the Code of Conduct for law enforcement officials and the principles on the use of force and firearms – and be able to use them as tools in their everyday work. They must understand the fact that international human rights standards concerning their work were developed to provide invaluable guidance for the performance of their crucial functions in a democratic society. However, police officers in the line of duty should know not only what the rules are, but also how to do their job effectively within the confines of those rules.

Most people have heard the argument that respect for human rights is somehow opposed to effective law enforcement. And effective law enforcement means to capture the criminal. And to secure his conviction, it is necessary to “bend the rules” a little. A tendency to use overwhelming force in controlling demonstrations, physical pressure to extract information from detainees, or excessive force to secure an arrest can be observed now and then. In this way of thinking, law enforcement is a war against crime, and human rights are merely obstacles thrown in the path of the police by lawyers and NGOs. In fact, violations of human rights ––78–––– police only make the already challenging task of law enforcement ––– 79––– . When the law enforcer ––– 80––– the lawbreaker, the result is an assault on human dignity, on the law itself and on all institutions of public authority.

                                                         (G. Kalajdziev, et al. www.humanrights.dk. Adaptado.)

    Police and Human Rights – Manual for Police Training

How can respecting human rights help the police? 

Respect for human rights by law enforcement agencies actually enhances the effectiveness of those agencies. Where human rights are systematically respected, police officers have developed professionalism in their approaches to solving and preventing crime and maintaining public order. In this sense, respect for human rights by police is, in addition to being a moral, legal and ethical imperative, also a practical requirement for law enforcement. When the police are seen to respect, uphold and defend human rights: 

• Public confidence is built and community cooperation fostered.

• Legal prosecutions are successful in court. • Police are seen as part of the community, performing a valuable social function.

• The fair administration of justice is served, and, consequently, confidence in the system.

• An example is set for respect for the law by others in the society.

• Police are able to be closer to the community, and, therefore, in a position to prevent and solve crimes through proactive policing.

• Support is elicited from the media, from the international community, and from higher authorities.

• A contribution is made to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and complaints. 

An effective police service is one that serves as the first line of defense in the protection of human rights. Its members carry out their work in a way, which does not rely upon fear and raw power but, on the contrary, is based on regard for the law, honor, and professionalism. 

What role does training play in protecting human rights?

The effective training of police in human rights is an essential element in the global efforts to promote and protect human rights in every country. In order to protect human rights, the police must first know and understand them. Furthermore, police officers must be familiar with the various international guidelines and bodies of principles – such as the Code of Conduct for law enforcement officials and the principles on the use of force and firearms – and be able to use them as tools in their everyday work. They must understand the fact that international human rights standards concerning their work were developed to provide invaluable guidance for the performance of their crucial functions in a democratic society. However, police officers in the line of duty should know not only what the rules are, but also how to do their job effectively within the confines of those rules.

Most people have heard the argument that respect for human rights is somehow opposed to effective law enforcement. And effective law enforcement means to capture the criminal. And to secure his conviction, it is necessary to “bend the rules” a little. A tendency to use overwhelming force in controlling demonstrations, physical pressure to extract information from detainees, or excessive force to secure an arrest can be observed now and then. In this way of thinking, law enforcement is a war against crime, and human rights are merely obstacles thrown in the path of the police by lawyers and NGOs. In fact, violations of human rights ––78–––– police only make the already challenging task of law enforcement ––– 79––– . When the law enforcer ––– 80––– the lawbreaker, the result is an assault on human dignity, on the law itself and on all institutions of public authority.

                                                         (G. Kalajdziev, et al. www.humanrights.dk. Adaptado.)

    Police and Human Rights – Manual for Police Training

How can respecting human rights help the police? 

Respect for human rights by law enforcement agencies actually enhances the effectiveness of those agencies. Where human rights are systematically respected, police officers have developed professionalism in their approaches to solving and preventing crime and maintaining public order. In this sense, respect for human rights by police is, in addition to being a moral, legal and ethical imperative, also a practical requirement for law enforcement. When the police are seen to respect, uphold and defend human rights: 

• Public confidence is built and community cooperation fostered.

• Legal prosecutions are successful in court. • Police are seen as part of the community, performing a valuable social function.

• The fair administration of justice is served, and, consequently, confidence in the system.

• An example is set for respect for the law by others in the society.

• Police are able to be closer to the community, and, therefore, in a position to prevent and solve crimes through proactive policing.

• Support is elicited from the media, from the international community, and from higher authorities.

• A contribution is made to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and complaints. 

An effective police service is one that serves as the first line of defense in the protection of human rights. Its members carry out their work in a way, which does not rely upon fear and raw power but, on the contrary, is based on regard for the law, honor, and professionalism. 

What role does training play in protecting human rights?

The effective training of police in human rights is an essential element in the global efforts to promote and protect human rights in every country. In order to protect human rights, the police must first know and understand them. Furthermore, police officers must be familiar with the various international guidelines and bodies of principles – such as the Code of Conduct for law enforcement officials and the principles on the use of force and firearms – and be able to use them as tools in their everyday work. They must understand the fact that international human rights standards concerning their work were developed to provide invaluable guidance for the performance of their crucial functions in a democratic society. However, police officers in the line of duty should know not only what the rules are, but also how to do their job effectively within the confines of those rules.

Most people have heard the argument that respect for human rights is somehow opposed to effective law enforcement. And effective law enforcement means to capture the criminal. And to secure his conviction, it is necessary to “bend the rules” a little. A tendency to use overwhelming force in controlling demonstrations, physical pressure to extract information from detainees, or excessive force to secure an arrest can be observed now and then. In this way of thinking, law enforcement is a war against crime, and human rights are merely obstacles thrown in the path of the police by lawyers and NGOs. In fact, violations of human rights ––78–––– police only make the already challenging task of law enforcement ––– 79––– . When the law enforcer ––– 80––– the lawbreaker, the result is an assault on human dignity, on the law itself and on all institutions of public authority.

                                                         (G. Kalajdziev, et al. www.humanrights.dk. Adaptado.)

    Police and Human Rights – Manual for Police Training

How can respecting human rights help the police? 

Respect for human rights by law enforcement agencies actually enhances the effectiveness of those agencies. Where human rights are systematically respected, police officers have developed professionalism in their approaches to solving and preventing crime and maintaining public order. In this sense, respect for human rights by police is, in addition to being a moral, legal and ethical imperative, also a practical requirement for law enforcement. When the police are seen to respect, uphold and defend human rights: 

• Public confidence is built and community cooperation fostered.

• Legal prosecutions are successful in court. • Police are seen as part of the community, performing a valuable social function.

• The fair administration of justice is served, and, consequently, confidence in the system.

• An example is set for respect for the law by others in the society.

• Police are able to be closer to the community, and, therefore, in a position to prevent and solve crimes through proactive policing.

• Support is elicited from the media, from the international community, and from higher authorities.

• A contribution is made to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and complaints. 

An effective police service is one that serves as the first line of defense in the protection of human rights. Its members carry out their work in a way, which does not rely upon fear and raw power but, on the contrary, is based on regard for the law, honor, and professionalism. 

What role does training play in protecting human rights?

The effective training of police in human rights is an essential element in the global efforts to promote and protect human rights in every country. In order to protect human rights, the police must first know and understand them. Furthermore, police officers must be familiar with the various international guidelines and bodies of principles – such as the Code of Conduct for law enforcement officials and the principles on the use of force and firearms – and be able to use them as tools in their everyday work. They must understand the fact that international human rights standards concerning their work were developed to provide invaluable guidance for the performance of their crucial functions in a democratic society. However, police officers in the line of duty should know not only what the rules are, but also how to do their job effectively within the confines of those rules.

Most people have heard the argument that respect for human rights is somehow opposed to effective law enforcement. And effective law enforcement means to capture the criminal. And to secure his conviction, it is necessary to “bend the rules” a little. A tendency to use overwhelming force in controlling demonstrations, physical pressure to extract information from detainees, or excessive force to secure an arrest can be observed now and then. In this way of thinking, law enforcement is a war against crime, and human rights are merely obstacles thrown in the path of the police by lawyers and NGOs. In fact, violations of human rights ––78–––– police only make the already challenging task of law enforcement ––– 79––– . When the law enforcer ––– 80––– the lawbreaker, the result is an assault on human dignity, on the law itself and on all institutions of public authority.

                                                         (G. Kalajdziev, et al. www.humanrights.dk. Adaptado.)

    Police and Human Rights – Manual for Police Training

How can respecting human rights help the police? 

Respect for human rights by law enforcement agencies actually enhances the effectiveness of those agencies. Where human rights are systematically respected, police officers have developed professionalism in their approaches to solving and preventing crime and maintaining public order. In this sense, respect for human rights by police is, in addition to being a moral, legal and ethical imperative, also a practical requirement for law enforcement. When the police are seen to respect, uphold and defend human rights: 

• Public confidence is built and community cooperation fostered.

• Legal prosecutions are successful in court. • Police are seen as part of the community, performing a valuable social function.

• The fair administration of justice is served, and, consequently, confidence in the system.

• An example is set for respect for the law by others in the society.

• Police are able to be closer to the community, and, therefore, in a position to prevent and solve crimes through proactive policing.

• Support is elicited from the media, from the international community, and from higher authorities.

• A contribution is made to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and complaints. 

An effective police service is one that serves as the first line of defense in the protection of human rights. Its members carry out their work in a way, which does not rely upon fear and raw power but, on the contrary, is based on regard for the law, honor, and professionalism. 

What role does training play in protecting human rights?

The effective training of police in human rights is an essential element in the global efforts to promote and protect human rights in every country. In order to protect human rights, the police must first know and understand them. Furthermore, police officers must be familiar with the various international guidelines and bodies of principles – such as the Code of Conduct for law enforcement officials and the principles on the use of force and firearms – and be able to use them as tools in their everyday work. They must understand the fact that international human rights standards concerning their work were developed to provide invaluable guidance for the performance of their crucial functions in a democratic society. However, police officers in the line of duty should know not only what the rules are, but also how to do their job effectively within the confines of those rules.

Most people have heard the argument that respect for human rights is somehow opposed to effective law enforcement. And effective law enforcement means to capture the criminal. And to secure his conviction, it is necessary to “bend the rules” a little. A tendency to use overwhelming force in controlling demonstrations, physical pressure to extract information from detainees, or excessive force to secure an arrest can be observed now and then. In this way of thinking, law enforcement is a war against crime, and human rights are merely obstacles thrown in the path of the police by lawyers and NGOs. In fact, violations of human rights ––78–––– police only make the already challenging task of law enforcement ––– 79––– . When the law enforcer ––– 80––– the lawbreaker, the result is an assault on human dignity, on the law itself and on all institutions of public authority.

                                                         (G. Kalajdziev, et al. www.humanrights.dk. Adaptado.)

                         The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe

                                                                                         Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010

      The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.

      Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.

      Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.

      “Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.

      Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.

       Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.

                                                                                                             (www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)

                         The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe

                                                                                         Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010

      The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.

      Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.

      Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.

      “Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.

      Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.

       Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.

                                                                                                             (www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)

                         The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe

                                                                                         Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010

      The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.

      Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.

      Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.

      “Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.

      Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.

       Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.

                                                                                                             (www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)

                         The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe

                                                                                         Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010

      The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.

      Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.

      Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.

      “Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.

      Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.

       Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.

                                                                                                             (www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)

                         The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe

                                                                                         Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010

      The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.

      Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.

      Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.

      “Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.

      Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.

       Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.

                                                                                                             (www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)

                         The Big Destructiveness Of The Tiny Bribe

                                                                                         Alexandra Wrage 03.01.2010

      The smallest bribes can be the most vexing. Not suitcases full of money and transfers to offshore accounts, but the thousands of everyday payments people make to Indian building inspectors, Chinese customs officials and Nigerian airport functionaries, just to get things done. They’re payments for routine government services that a government official is legally obliged to perform but for which he’s hoping to skim off a little extra.

      Unlike more serious bribes, these very modest payouts, formally known as “facilitating payments”, are not against the laws of the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Korea, when made abroad. They’re illegal for Great Britain, but the Serious Fraud Office there has taken the extraordinary public position that they’re unlikely to give rise to a prosecution.

      Why don’t governments that lead the fight against large-scale bribery fall in line with what is already the practice of many major companies? They don’t want to outlaw such small-scale graft in foreign places, they say, because they don’t have the manpower to prosecute violators. By that logic, communities with just enough resources to handle murder and armed robbery would give a green light to shoplifting. You’d think a government could at least go after a few high-profile cases to set an example and a precedent. Permitting these smaller payments has to impede the effort to crack down on the larger ones. Companies know this.

      “Facilitating” bribes are not tips. Tipping is voluntary, and you decide to do it after a service has been rendered. You don’t pay it at the outset to induce the waiter to bring the food, and you can always go somewhere else to eat next time should the service be bad. Nor are they welfare for underpaid civil servants. If government workers are underpaid, we should compensate them for the cost of customs inspections or airport security by aboveboard means, through taxation and so forth. Payment to individuals not only slows service but also encourages entrepreneurial civil servants to increase their income by creating more and greater obstacles.

      Nor are they a mere distraction from the fight against bigger bribes. Rather, they fuel the problem. Junior officials who look for small bribes rise to higher positions by paying off those above them. Corruption creates pyramids of illegal payments flowing upward. Legalizing the base of the pyramid gives it a strong and lasting foundation.

       Nor are these payments legal where they’re made. They may not be banned by the wealthy countries mentioned above, but they are outlawed in the countries where they’re actually a problem. Do developed countries want to say they wouldn’t tolerate such payments at home but don’t care if they’re made abroad? And since they’re illegal in the countries where they’re paid, companies can’t put them on their books. The classic cover for a bribe is to call it a “consulting fee”, but that is a books and records violation that is illegal in any country.

                                                                                                             (www.forbes.com. Adaptado.)