skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 160668 Find in a Library
Title: Should We Prosecute Corporations and/or Individuals (From Corporate Crime: Contemporary Debates, P 72-86, 1995, Frank Pearce and Laureen Snider, eds. - See NCJ-160666)
Author(s): G Geis; J Dimento
Date Published: 1995
Page Count: 15
Sponsoring Agency: University of Toronto Press
Toronto, Ontario M4Y 2W8, Canada
Sale Source: University of Toronto Press
Marketing Manager
10 St. Mary Street
Suite 700
Toronto, Ontario M4Y 2W8,
Canada
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Language: English
Country: Canada
Annotation: This critique of the doctrine of corporate criminal liability argues that although it is deeply embedded in the criminal justice systems of the United States, Canada, and Great Britain, it is almost unknown in civil law countries and serves no demonstrable purpose that could not be fulfilled equally well by more creative use of individual criminality.
Abstract: Six major arguments have been advanced to support the principle of corporate criminal liability. These are that (1) a corporate entity is distinctive form the sum of the persons who make up the organization, (2) punishing individuals rather than the corporate entity is ineffective, (3) corporations are more deterrable than individuals, (4) corporations can be more readily refashioned than can individuals, (5) corporations are easier targets for criminal prosecution, and (6) the corporation's greater assets make it a more affluent target. However, the alleged benefits of the principle at best are not proven and at worst are fallacious, mischievous, and socially harmful. Notes
Main Term(s): Criminology
Index Term(s): Canada; Civil remedies; Corporate crimes; Corporate criminal liability; Great Britain/United Kingdom; Legal doctrines; Regulations compliance; United States of America
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=160668

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.