DP4

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP4

Should the NSPE Board of Ethical Review articulate an explicit dishonesty-nexus threshold criterion limiting Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct to convictions for offenses involving dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude, or should the Board issue a general ruling that personal misconduct violates the Code without specifying a limiting principle?

Whether the NSPE Board of Ethical Review should establish a principled, administrable threshold specifying that Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct attaches only to criminal convictions for offenses whose essential element is dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude — thereby reconciling the expansive interpretation canon with the professional society disciplinary scope limitation — or whether the Board's general ruling in Case 72-6 is sufficient without a limiting principle.

Articulate an explicit standard limiting Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct to criminal convictions for offenses whose essential element is dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude — consistent with state engineering registration law standards — thereby providing an administrable boundary that honors both the expansive public-confidence purpose and the judiciousness caveat.

Rule that personal misconduct of the types described violates the Code without articulating a specific limiting principle, leaving the precise threshold for future cases to be determined on a fact-specific basis as the Board's judiciousness caveat implies — trusting that the two present cases provide sufficient guidance by example.

Adopt a bright-line rule limiting Code jurisdiction over personal misconduct to felony convictions — regardless of whether the offense involves dishonesty — on the ground that the felony/misdemeanor distinction provides a clear, legally established threshold that avoids the professional society substituting its own moral gradations for those of the criminal law.

NSPE Board of Ethical Review