Initially, my personal values distracted from my ability to sympathize with Bernard Ebbers conviction. His defense team argued that the trial judge wrongly instructed the jury that it could convict Mr. Ebbers on the basis that he engaged in “conscious avoidance” of the fraud at WorldCom. It is evident that Ebbers took a blind eye to any consideration to analyze the good stuff from the bad stuff in this situation. He failed to calculate the considerations of utility and as a result he is paying the consequences through a substantial decrease in his quality of life. Currently he is serving a 25 year sentence as inmate #56022-054 for 25 years in the Oakdale Federal Correctional Complex in Louisiana. His earliest date to be considered for good conduct is 2028 when he will be over 85 years old.
The inherent obligation to duty and responsibility placed upon the leaders of any organization, although in some instances is implied, should be understood. Ones inability to accept a position without this understanding, from my frame of reference, is ludicrous. While analyzing this case using normative ethics as a general approach to moral decision making process, I found that Ebbers failed to consider the implications of his actions for this employees, stakeholders, and shareholders. He also failed to consider the deontological issues concerning his duty to do what was right according to the law. At the time of its collapse, WorldCom had over 830,000 individuals and institutions that had held stocks and bonds. In September 2005, as a result of a civil suit, Ebbers has forced to forfeit cash and assets worth as much as $45 million, to settle lawsuits filed by WorldCom shareholders. I believe Ebbers should be incarcerated for his crime, but I am sympathetic to the argument presented by his defense team that perhaps his term is harsh in comparison to other officers closely associated with this case. He is not the lone villain; the chief executives and board of WorldCom...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document