Who is worse, the Briber or the Bribee?

I really think it’s immaterial. It’s corruption either way. Neither is exempt from blame, and the transaction wouldn’t take place without both parties’ assent. From the point of view of risk, each could be seen as a threat to the other.

It’s probably cloudier, though, when there isn’t a clear sum of money involved; for example, the official who offers to fix things in return for some other consideration, such as a future political advantage or a favor for a colleague who’s part of a larger complex of special relationships. The Godfather of Puzo’s novel specialized in this sort of elaborate exchange network of favors.

Of course the level of blame must vary with the nature of the transaction.

Both are bad. The briber is worse. He is temptation.

The one getting bribed is worse, because he is the one betraying the trust of those that he works for.

Agree wit Loli.

The Bribee. The briber is doing what he is doing out of self-preservation and no doubt is already guilty of a crime so it’s not like they are losing anything they had. Like morals nor would they try the bribe if they didn’t already know the person would take it.

Now as the Bribee, they are no doubt supposed to uphold the law and would lose nothing (other than money or a favor) if they refuse. So they aren’t doing it to stay out of jail but rather to feed their greed. It is not upon a criminal to keep honest but it’s the bribee’s responsibility to uphold the law.
Now if the Bribee initiated it then he or she is twice as guilty.
Both are despicable but the Bribee I’m sure took some oath to uphold the law and definitely knows better.

Since this is in Social . . . . Justin Bieber is a close second to bridee.

It depends on the circumstance. Who’s bribing whom to do what, and for what purpose.

Some people pay bribes to avoid harassment, or to get their families out of a dangerous situation, or because the authorities are extorting bribes from them.

Some people pay bribes because they are an agent for massively wealthy interests who want to be even more wealthy, and are bribing so the massively wealthy interests can become even more wealthy and powerful. Some people pay bribes because they have done terrible crimes and want to escape justice.

Etc. It seems to me that the circumstances tend to be more important than who is bribing and who is being bribed.

The bribee is worse, as the decision-maker in the situation. Althou @Zaku does have a point, there are grey areas.

It MUST depend on circumstances. You need only consider the innumerable instances where, for example, a cop extorts a bribe to overlook the issuance of a traffic ticket.

Usually, but not always, a bribee is someone who is in a weak position, for any number of reasons. In those cases, a bribee is taking advantage of someone who has little power to refuse. In my opinion, people taking advantage of someone else’s pain is vile.
In those cases, the bribee is wrong, but hopefully has an internal conflict which punishes them at least in part.
Unfortunately, those refusing the offered bribe are often ruined as a result.

I think the briber is the most at fault.

The bribee is the person taking the bribe. People with great power (but low moral standards) have been known to accept bribes.

The circumstances can vary so drastically from case to case, that “worse” is an impossible assessment as a fixed or even probable rule. My thought is that whoever initiates the process, or holds power over the other participant must be considered. It isn’t so much about which man pays or collects. For example, if A pays B, did B demand the bribe from A or did A offer B the “opportunity”?