I believe we already 'hold people in certain professions to higher standards of legal accountability and responsibility', and following are a few examples which demonstrate that position.

1. Bernie Ebbers was not believed when he said he didn't know anything about the accounting irregularities at World Com. The judge held him to a higher standard as indicated by the heavy sentence he got, whereas if it had been Joe Blow on the stand, I doubt there would have been a 25 year prison sentence passed down.

2. Doctors are sued regularly for errors in judgment or performance which explains why their malpractice insurance premiums are outrageous. Nurses are not normally sued under the deep pocket theory. Doctors are expected to be perfect, but they cannot always be.

3. Patricia Dunn, former chairman of the board of HP, was judged in the press to have condoned inappropriate behavior for someone in her position, whereas corporate spying at a lower level would probably not force a resignation.

4. When a politician is accused of tax fraud, we are appalled that someone in that position of public responsibility could do this, even though it is common.

The moral responsibility of certain behavior says to me that we expect more of some people than others. What criteria do we use to elevate the morals or ethics? Is it education, position, notoriety, public trust, money? I suspect that when we admire or respect people who have education, position, notoriety, public trust or money, we raise our level of expectations for their behavior. In doing so, we tend to be harsher with punishment on those over people for whom we have low expectations. Is that fair or right? Probably not, but I think we equate respect and trust with high ethical behavior.

In a more socialistic society where capitalistic values are downplayed, there would probably be an entirely different story to tell.