Just because a court says the government didn't prove its case doesn't mean you're innocent. Ethics author Shel Horowitz discusses the Michael Jackson and Arthur Andersen cases.
Hadley, Mass. (PRWEB) June 17, 2005 -- Being found not guilty is not the same as innocence, says ethics expert Shel Horowitz--and that's something people have to understand as they look at both the Michael Jackson case and the recent Supreme Court decision overturning the guilty verdict against Arthur Andersen.
Horowitz, author of the Apex Award-winning book "Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First" and originator of the international Business Ethics Pledge campaign, writes in his Principled Profit blog:
"Neither decision addressed the defendant's guilt or innocence. All that has happened is that a jury in one case and a panel of judges in the other found that the government did not make a strong enough case for wrongful intent."
Horowitz's hard-hitting blog has previously:
-Defended "Newsweek" for running the Koran-abuse story, even after the magazine retracted it
-Compared Watergate's Deep Throat (Mark Felt)--a secret source who brought down a government--with today's reporters' deep-seated fear of anonymous sources
-Ripped a pharmaceutical giant for stepping up its marketing when the product was discovered to be unsafe
-Tells why he wasn't surprised that a study of a popular marketing methodology blew the doors off an old myth--and discussed what this had to do with Dan Rather and the Bush military service story
Horowitz writes frequently on the intersection of politics, business, and ethics. The author of six books, he has written for "Business Ethics Magazine "and been quoted in "Inc," "Fortune Small Business," "The Wall Street Journal," and many other business publications.