Policy on professional discipline for criminal conviction 3

[PM]

In an effort to avoid anything too controversial, . . .I'll throw you this easy question! ;-)

In our engineering jurisdiction, there are four grounds for discipline; one of which is "conviction for a criminal offense in a court of competent jurisdiction".

The responsibility for discipline of members falls to the licensing body. For all but the wealthiest jurisdictions, it's been claimed that it would be impractical to prosecute a discipline case against every engineer that may have been convicted sometime in the past (ie. drunk and disorderly or disturbing the peace being not uncommon back in the old school days).

Just finding out who has a conviction could be a major undertaking (ie. local, national and international records searches).

Assuming there will never be a consistent pursuit of such "criminals" amongst us, should the licensing body have a policy to prosecute some and not all criminally convicted engineers?

For hypothetical example:
Given the following recent two different, yet highly publicized criminal cases, I'd be interested in your views. The first involved:[ul][li]a male,[/li][li]with long standing and distinguished professional service to his employer and most notably,[/li][li]is generally unknown or associated by the Public as an engineer. (ie. including the press coverage after his trial)[/li][/ul]The second case involves:[ul][li]a female,[/li][li]also with long and distinguished standing in the profession, but is[/li][li]very well known publically and generally associated with the engineering profession through her many awards and her work on behalf of the engineering association.[/li][/ul]The first engineer was convicted of aggravated sexual assaults against his baby sitter and the second engineer was convicted of shop lifting.

In the first case, it might be argued that the engineer has done little, if any damage to the profession, while in the second case, the engineer clearly brought considerable disrepute upon the engineering association, not just immeadiately after the trial, but for some time afterwards.

Do you consider these cases as:[ul][li]Essentially equivalent in terms of damage to the profession?[/li][li]Would you treat them similarly from an engineering point of view? (ie. Would you try to heap more criminal sanctions upon these two?)[/li][li]How would you treat other criminal convictions involving engineers who are publically unknown, convictions were for minor offense, etc.?[/li][/ul]Does your local engineering lisensing body have a policy on this sort of dilemma?
Regards,

 

[PSE]

PM,

The intent in my previous post was (tongue in cheek) to expand the ethical boundary beyond what is represented by the state. In other words to explore whether or not we have either a greater obligation or calling.

Snippet from PM (I know that it is potentially misleading to take things out of context so I hope other readers will read your full posting above),

"Engineer's obligations are to their own domestic public, not some international public in an enemy state."

To perhaps pose an EXTREME example (I can't believe that I am actually going to pose this ), if we set the boundaries of our ethics to be subservient to the state, were the engineers that built the extermination camps in WW II behaving ethically? I do not believe so. Should we consider engineers working for and within an enemy state to be ethical individuals?

Regards,

PSE

History tends to side with the victorious.

 

[PM]

PSE makes some good points. Of course a lawyer would probably be better able to weave the intricate rationale for PSE's circumstance better than me, but let's try.

To violate a criminal law is by definition unethical. Presumably violations of civil statutes, common law of contract and torts can also be seen as violations of engineering law, depending on the definition in your state / province. Today, we have international conventions and treaties to which we are bound because of their ratification by our own state. These include the International War Crimes Tribunal and the newly formed International Court of Criminal Justice in the Hague. ( Edit. Come to think of it the US has refused to ratify this latter treaty, but most of the rest of the world has signed on.) Never-the-less, the concept of 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity' was first applied by the US & its allies after WW II. Accordingly, the engineers who built the extermination camps would be guilty of international crimes and therefore would be unethical.

If victory confers power over an adversary, then PSE is right. It's difficult to imagine what international law might look like today if Germany and Japan won the last world war. Doubtless we would all be talking with a slightly different accent than today. Perhaps we'd be still fighting WW III although that seems questionable in a nuclear age.
Regards,

 

[RDK]

The purpose of the licensing bodies is to protect the public.

They have both the right and the obligation to set standards. These standards can include bringing discredit to the profession. See also the code of Ethics for your local association. I’m sure that there is something about discrediting the profession. A violation of the code of Ethics is grounds for discipline.

In Canada the division between what criminal offence is significant appears to be the conviction on an indictable offence (similar to a felony in the US). For lesser offences unless there is a aspect that causes harm to the profession, the provincial authorities will generally not take action. This will let off the johns, tokers and drunk drivers, since in Canada these are not considered serious offences.

For a minor shoplifting the only action would be if due to the position of the engineer the act brought discredit to the profession. For the sexual offender the offence would be serious enough for disciplinary action to be taken.

I’m reminded about a case in BC in the early 80’s. This was during a recession and a P.Eng was working as a bicycle courier. He absconded with about $2M in negotiable securities. The managed to hold on to his license because at the time there was no provision for discipline for actions taken outside the scope of being a Professional Engineer. If he had been in say a clients office after having gained entry in the course of engineering duties and committed the theft, it would have been a different story.

I believe that this case is the source of the changes in Canada regarding provision for discipline for moral grounds.

Of course that’s just my opinion and I may be wrong.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com