DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS

In relations between individuals and the state, the discretionary actions of government officials and employees produce a fertile terrain that facilitates the growth of corruption. The result of sanctions and their progressive nature is intended to deter taxpayers to backslide in their disobedience to the law. The broad discretion of public officials leads to injustice.

Fines or other penalties imposed with ranges of 900 percent (10-100) between a minimum and a maximum are set out in the administrative field; lapses may lead to closure of an establishment in 1 to 15 days. Both schemes induce the originator of the sanction to set, as a negotiating point, the maximum value and stimulates the sanctioned individual or entity to propose a lower value, accompanied by a bribe.

As for the field of justice, penalties for offenses with temporary bonds range widely in size to facilitate negotiations between the parties for their reduction and promote the possibility of easing punishments by the use of bribery compensations.

The source of discretionary actions is the policy that establishes and predisposes towards corrupt behavior by those who execute it. Therefore, reducing the punitive power in the application of penalties by administrative and judicial operators, will help reduce the power of discretion generated which may result in different penalties for equal or similar offenses depending on the ability to pay by  the sanctioned to reduce punishments or penalties brought about by essentially equal circumstances.

The design of sanctions that stimulates inequality can lead to situations of social injustice and economic irrationality. In the case of the closure of an establishment as a penalty, this should only be for extreme situations and to prevent threats to people’s life, health and safety. The disruption of the normal operation of a business is against the interests of owners, employees, suppliers, consumers and even the same operators that impose such a disproportionate and counterproductive penalty.

During economic conditions of poor performance and a high level of unemployment, business closures are bound to produce catastrophic consequences and in these cases business groups should ask the appropriate authorities for the reduction or elimination of discretion in the application of sanctions that could be detrimental to the citizenship.