NCJ Number
137865
Journal
EuroCriminology Volume: 4 Dated: (1992) Pages: 15-27
Date Published
1992
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This paper suggests that what is usually defined as corporate crime should be examined not only in the context of criminal or administrative law but also from philosophical and scientific perspectives.
Abstract
Two traditional elements in legally defined crime include actus reus (criminal act) and mens rea (criminal intent and guilt). The traditional response to crime has been "deserved" punishment. Whether the policy is to punish, treat, or rehabilitate, or apply other sanctions, three questions are particularly relevant to corporate crime: to whom sanctions should apply, what sanctions to apply, and whether any other measures should be employed outside the scope of the law. Managers of corporations, for example, can rightfully claim they are hired, fired, and supervised by boards; therefore, they are not accountable and do not deserve any sanctions. Another example involves the use of fines: if they are insignificant, they can easily be absorbed; if they are moderate, the corporation will increase its prices and customers will have to pay more; if they are substantial, the corporation may suspend or transfer its activities, creating local employment and other negative consequences. The concept of reasonable behavior is applied to corporate crime commission and prevention, and shared responsibility involving government, corporation management, and workers is proposed as a practical solution. The idea of negotiation rather than arbitrary law enforcement to deal with corporate crime is stressed, that is, action directed toward the future rather than an analysis of past behavior in terms of guilt and criminal responsibility. 48 footnotes