Can public officials who are indicted for a crime be forced to resign?
90189
No, they cannot be forced to resign.  They may be forcefully pursuaded that their resignation is in the best interest of their party or the constituancy, but they can't be forced to sign a resignation (And if they were, they could probably have the courts rescind it as being done under duress).  Politicians can be impeached for behavior unbecoming of their office, or impeached for the crime outright if it related to their jobs.\n\nThis isn't the case for appointed officials though.  Since President Andrew Johnson's impeachment, the President, upon someone being confirmed will also submit an undated resignation letter.  So, if the President wants to remove you from your post, they just date the letter and you are out.
275887
only by stiffer penalty's,let the time fit the crime and  give them no probation and if its a elected official, they must give up their retirement benefits.... being hard on them wont be easy and in some peoples eyes, it may not be fair... but who ever said fighting corruption was easy....or fair?? you fight fire with fire.....
757864
He will have a record after he will get convicted in court. He will get fired from his job.
797410
Too many issues to open that can of worms. However, there are some loopholes in the current system, for example it may be possible to bring different charges for the same crime like manslaughter instead of murder, depends on your luck with the judge since much of law today is judicial discretion & bench precedent. It a person gets off and then confesses (on tape, provable), if that person testified at the trial and said they were innocent, s/he could be charged with perjury among other things. It would be very foolish to confess though, because even if the person gets off legally, there are still civil lawsuits and consequences that are not so easily dismissed.
1132638
in law, public reprimand amounts to a scolding by the judge in a court case without a fine. basicly letting them know they are getting off this time, but if they come before the judge again, they won't be easy on them. mostly done in white collar crimes.
255715
No he should not resign. He has a responsibility to his party and to his constituents to commit to his role and right his wrongs. Furthermore, who would replace him? Another crony? An unprepared opposition? There is a wonderful process called democracy that means we can vote him out if we don't like him. If anything, he could call an early election, but he should not resign.
321754
off-course its illegal,you cant fire someone because off there politic opinions.if they took a day of work to attend then you can take disciplinary action as normal for lack of attendance,however you can only fire them if they have received previous verbal and written warnings.
457379
Check the standards for your local law enforcement agencies where you intend to apply.  The charge sounds like a reduced charge with plea of guilty.  Law enforcement agencies normally consider your actual conduct during the crime and not the court resolution since they are evaluating you on your character and fitness to be a police officer and carry a firearm.  If the charge was in the  last 7 to 10 years or involved dishonesty or perjury chances are you will not be hired.  A police officer is expected to spend much time testifying under oath, and obviously if they can show you lied under oath in the past, your ability to be a law enforcement officer is impeached.  Sorry but most other public jobs are available providing no felony or misuse of funds.
859825
I believe the law says that until you can prove wrong doing, you have to pay the person. They usually put them on paid administration because for some reason or another they don't want the person around just in case the accusation is true. Such as child abuse in the school, if there is any doubt that the adult,(teacher) did it they don't want him/her near the children. Hope this tells you something you wanted to know.
1126293
What happens in most jurisdictions is that the district attorney, elected by the people, keeps on getting re-elected.  Therefore, the DA can stay in office for many, many years.  Ordinarily the DA will play the politics card to show he or she is tough on crime, get the media to jump on the bandwagon and keep getting reelected.
833245
Yes they can all be impeached and removed as well as federal judges. They can be impeached as well. A president has never been removed. In the United States, impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. At the federal level, different standards apply when the impeachment involves a member of the executive branch or of the judiciary (and dispute currently exists over the use of impeachment against members of the legislative branch.) For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" may be impeached. Although treason and bribery are obvious, the Constitution is silent on what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor." Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense. The impeachment procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives). The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached."\n\nNext, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President him- or herself, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant wouldn't be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment, the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.\n\nIn order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension.) If a two-thirds majority of the senators present does not vote "Guilty" on one or more of the charges, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.  Here is our impeachment history.\n\ntwo presidents: \n\nAndrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act. Johnson was acquitted of all charges by a single vote in the Senate. \n\nBill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote), and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote). He was acquitted by the Senate. \n\none cabinet officer, William W. Belknap (Secretary of War). He resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction. \n\none Senator, William Blount (though the Senate had already expelled him and it may have been illegal, see above). \nAssociate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted. \n\ntwelve other federal judges, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for allegedly taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency. The Senate did not bar Hastings from holding future office, and Hastings currently serves as a Democratic member of the House
1081059
It depends on the organization's by-laws. It may or may not be legitimate, but the person elected certainly doesn't have to take the position it they don't want it.
255042
Only the DA, not the police can make any promise of a deal.  and then it has to be oked by the judge,  A judge does have the right to refuse to accept a deal made by the DA if they don't beleive it is for the good of society.\n\nnext you need to have your attorney or public defender to review any deal.  Since a plea is an admission of guilt, it is saying you are guilty.  So if you do get released it would be on probation or time served.
18869
Not necessarily because those positions are often subordinate to a higher, elected official. It is imperative that these assistants cooperate with the elected official because otherwise, the administrative team will not be productive at all. Anyways, the elected official already represents the interests of the people and can pass his voted-for policies to the secretaries and attorney general.
87602
An indictment can be sealed so that it stays non-public until it is unsealed. This can be done for a number of reasons. It may be unsealed, for example, once the named person is arrested.
806836
If someone is CHARGED with a crime and is indicted, it would seem that the D.A. has enough evidence to bring that person to trial. \n\nMost States have laws entitling the Defense to "FULL DISCLOSURE" of evidence (if you saw the movie 'My Cousin Vinny', you'll know this). The State MUST allow the Defendant the ability to see what evidence there is against him in order to prepare properly for the court case.\n\nHaving said that, if a D.A. wants to "BLOW HIS CASE" and try it in the media, going "PUBLIC" with the evidence will accomplish that.\n\nThe short answer is YES !!!
741226
To hold public office means that a person has to be capable of holding the public trust.  I guess one would have to know about the criminal history to be able to judge.  If it is a crime like "civil disobedience" to protest systemic unfairness, then that should not be a disqualifier.  If a person is seeking to be the State Treasurer and has a history of embezzlement. . .then it would be hard to sell the idea that this person would be the ideal candidate for the job.