Corporate Crime

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 5
24 views
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.

Download

Document Related
Document Description
Corporate crime From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Corporate corruption) Jump to: navigation, search Criminology and Penology Theories Anomie Differential Association Theory Deviance Labeling Theory Psychopathy Rational Choice Theory Social Control Theory Social Disorganization Theory Social Learning Theory Strain Theory Subcultural Theory Symbolic Interactionism · Victimology Types of crimes Blue-collar crime · Corporate crime Juvenile crime Organized crime Political crime
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  Corporate crime From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected fromCorporate corruption   )Jump to:navigation, search CriminologyandPenologyTheories AnomieDifferential Association TheoryDevianceLabeling TheoryPsychopathyRational Choice TheorySocial Control TheorySocial Disorganization TheorySocial Learning TheoryStrain TheorySubcultural TheorySymbolic Interactionism ·Victimology Types of crimes Blue-collar crime· Corporate crime Juvenile crimeOrganized crimePolitical crime· Public order crime Public order case law in the U.S.State crime·State-corporate crimeWhite-collar crime ·Victimless crime Plaid-collar crime Penology Deterrence ·Prison Prison reform· Prisoner abuse Prisoners' rights·RehabilitationRecidivism· Retribution Utilitarianism Criminal justice portal See also: Wikibooks:Social Deviance This box: view  ã  talk   ã  edit  Incriminology, corporate crime refers to crimes committed either by a corporation(i.e., a  business entityhaving a separate legal personality from thenatural personsthat manage its activities), or by individuals that may be identified with a corporation or other business entity(seevicarious liabilityandcorporate liability   ). Note that some forms of corporate corruption maynot actually be criminal if they are not specifically illegal under a given system of laws. For example, some jurisdictions allowinsider trading.Corporate crime overlaps with: ã white-collar crime,because the majority of individuals who may act as or represent theinterests of the corporation are employees or  professionals of a higher social class; ã organized crime, because criminals can set up corporations either for the purposes of crime or as vehicles for  launderingthe proceeds of crime. Organized crime has become a  branch of big business and is simply the illegal sector of capital. It has been estimatedthat, by the middle of the 1990s, the gross criminal product of organized crime made itthe twentieth richest organization in the world—richer than 150 sovereign states (Castells1998: 169). The world’s gross criminal product has been estimated at 20 percent of worldtrade. (de Brie 2000); and ã state-corporate crime because, in many contexts, the opportunity to commit crimeemerges from the relationship between the corporation and the state. Contents [show] [edit] Definitional issues [edit] Legal person An 1886 decision of theUnited States Supreme Court, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad  118U.S. 394(1886), has been cited by various courts in the US as precedent to maintain that a corporation can be defined legally as a 'person', as described in theFourteenthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment stipulates that, No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitiesof citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction theequal protection of the laws. InEnglish law, this was matched by the decision in Salomon v Salomon & Co [1897] AC 22. In Australian law,under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) , a corporation is legally a 'person'.This doctrine of corporate personhoodhas often impeded prosecution of corporate crime byallowing corporations to claimBill of Rights  protections in court, sometimes with success.  [edit] Function of law History shows that laws have always served as instruments of regulation. Lea (2001) argues thatwhereas crime used to be the exceptional event, disrupting the otherwise normal socio-economic processes, as crime becomes more frequent it lost its status as an exceptional event and became a standard, background feature of our lives—a taken for granted element of late modernity. (Garland 1996: 446) [edit] Policy to enforce the law against corporations Corporate crime has become politically sensitive in some countries. In the United Kingdom, for  example, following a number of fatal disasters on the rail network and at sea, the term iscommonly used in reference to corporate manslaughter and to involve a more general discussion about the technological hazards posed by business enterprises (see Wells: 2001). Similar incidents of corporate crime, such as the 1985 Union Carbideaccident inBhopal, India (Pearce & Tombs: 1993) and the behaviour of the pharmaceuticalindustry (Braithwaite: 1984).The Law Reform Commission of New South Wales offers an explanation of such criminalactivities: Corporate crime poses a significant threat to the welfare of the community. Given the pervasive presence of corporations in a wide range of activities in our society, and theimpact of their actions on a much wider group of people than are affected by individualaction, the potential for both economic and physical harm caused by a corporation isgreat. [1] Similarly, Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman (1999) assert: At one level, corporations develop new technologies and economies of scale. These mayserve the economic interests of mass consumers by introducing new products and moreefficient methods of mass production. On another level, given the absence of politicalcontrol today, corporations serve to destroy the foundations of the civic community andthe lives of people who reside in them. [edit] Discussion [edit] What behavior to criminalize Behavior can be regulated by thecivil law(includingadministrative law   ) or thecriminal law.In deciding to criminalize particular behavior, thelegislature is making the political judgment that this behavior is sufficientlyculpableto deserve the stigma of being labelled as a crime. In law,corporations can commit the same offences as natural persons. Simpson (2002) avers that this process should be straightforward because a state should simply engage in victimologyto identify which behavior causes the most loss and damage to itscitizens, and then represent themajority view that justice requires the intervention of the criminal law. But states depend on the   business sector to deliver a stable economy, so the politics of regulating the individuals andcorporations that supply that stability become more complex. For the views of Marxistcriminology, see Snider (1993) and Snider & Pearce (1995), for Left realism, see Pearce & Tombs (1992) and Schulte-Bockholt (2001), and for Right Realism, see Reed & Yeager (1996).More specifically, the historical tradition of sovereignstate control of  prisonsis ending through the process of  privatisation. Corporate profitability in these areas therefore depends on buildingmore prison facilities, managing their operations, and selling inmate labor. In turn, this requires asteady stream of  prisonersable to work. (Kicenski: 2002)The majority of crimes are committed because the offender has the 'right opportunity', i.e., wherethe offender simply sees the chance and thinks that he or she will be able to commit the crimeand not be detected. [ dubious  –  discuss   ][ citation needed  ] For the most part, [  peacock term   ]  greed, rather than conceit, is the motive, and the rationalisation for choosing to break the law usually arises out of a form of contempt for the victim, namely that he, she or it will be powerless to prevent it, and has itcoming for some reason. For these purposes, the corporation is the vehicle for the crime. Thismay be a short-term crime, i.e., the corporation is set up as a shell to open credit trading accountswith manufacturers and wholesalers, trades for a short period of time and then disappears withthe revenue and without paying for theinventory. Alternatively and most commonly, the primary purpose of the corporation is as a legitimate business, but criminal activity is secretly intermixedwith legal activity to escape detection. To achieve a suitable level of secrecy, senior managerswill usually be involved. The explanations and exculpations may therefore centre around rogueindividuals who acted outside the organizational structures, or there may be a seriousexamination of the occupational and organisational structures (often hinged on the socio-economic system, gender, racism and/or age) that facilitated the criminal conduct of acorporationBriberyandcorruptionare problems in the developed world, and the corruption of public officials is thought [ according to whom?   ] to be a large cause of crime in poor countries that have largeIMFdebts and IMF sovereign obligations. [edit] What penalties to impose In part, this will be a function of the public perception of the degrees of societal culpability  involved. Weissman and Mokhiber (1999) catalog the silence and indifference of the major media in the face of the widespread corporate corruption. Only in part is this justifiable. Thenews media find it difficult to respond to corporate crime both because reporting maycompromise thetrialby tainting the jury'sperceptions, or because of the danger of  defamation   proceedings. Further, major corporate crime is often complicated and more difficult to explain tothe lay public, as against street or  property crimes, which may provide graphic visual evidence of harm to victims injured, or of property that has been damaged or vandalizedin spectacular fashion. But, more significantly, the news media are owned by large corporations which mayalso own prisons. Thus, the political decisions on the resources to allocate to investigate and prosecute will tend to match the electorate's understanding of the dangers posed by 'crime'. Insentencing, the fact that the convicted individuals may have had an impeccable character as presidents,CEOs, chairmen,directorsand managers is likely to be a mitigating factor.
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks