'Corruption is a crime of calculation, not passion. When the size of the bribe is large, the chance of being caught small, and the penalty if caught meager, many officials will succumb.' 327
Corruption of the electoral process is a breach of public trust and an illegal act. Enforcing the legal framework is essential to maintain electoral integrity. Without enforcement, the best legal framework or electoral systems can be bypassed or ignored.
As explained by the Director of the U.S. Elections Crime Branch (Department of Justice): 'When elections are corrupted, arbitrary and corrupt government inevitably follow. Rooting out corruption in the electoral process, and bringing those responsible for it to swift and sure justice, is an important national law enforcement priority.'328
Enforcement serves as a deterrent to future fraud as well as a mechanism to stop and expose current problems. Enforcing election integrity and its legal framework is done by different institutions and mechanisms according to the legal infrastructure of each country.
In some systems, Enforcement Agencies have complete institutional independence, especially the institutions dealing with criminal justice. Others may work under a common institutional umbrella with the elections policy or management body. But regardless of the individual variations, enforcement requires:
For enforcement to be effective it must be active, impartial and timely. Investigative agencies and their investigators must have enough independence so they can initiate and throughly investigate allegations of election fraud or other related illegal activities.
Investigators must be objective and professional, and there should be no political interference with their work. These issues are discussed in Duties and Ethical Conduct of Investigators.
Integrity also requires that the rights of whistle-blowers, witnesses and the accused be protected. Defendants must have access to legal representation to ensure that their rights are protected. They must have access to the information that has been gathered against them, and to be able to present an adequate defense. These protections are discussed in Rights of Individuals in Investigations, and Rights of the Accused.
Prosecutors are often government employees or elected officials who can be very aware of public opinion and the politics involved in the problem being investigated. Prosecutors most often have discretion in determining if the evidence warrants a prosecution and, if so, who will be prosecuted. Subjective or unlimited discretion can have integrity consequences.
Courts and juries make the determination of guilt or innocence and must be impartial and separate from the prosecution. A judgement made with integrity is done on the basis of factual evidence and the legal context, not because of political affiliation, discrimination or unsubstantiated rumors. A fair hearing is usually facilitated by an independent judiciary.
The enforcement process can be subject to internal and external pressure and difficulties. Having transparent systems with checks and balances can protect the integrity of the enforcement process. These issues are discussed in Monitoring of Enforcement and Investigating in Difficult Circumstances.
