| Summary: | The supposed deterrent and retribution ‘tough on corporate crime’ model may have been promising when corporate criminal liability was recognised over a century ago, but it is not working today. The response to ‘controlling corporate crime’ should not be a simple hefty fine, a simple apology, or a pinky promise. The starting point lies in gaining an understanding of the justifying aims of punishment before determining how punishment should be distributed. The thesis moves away from the ‘soft on crime’ vs. ‘tough on crime’ debate, towards a ‘smart on crime’ approach. It goes back to the foundations of corporate criminal law to assess its aim(s) and purpose(s): why should we punish corporations? Why do corporations violate the law? How should corporations be brought to justice when they violate the law? If corporations cannot be imprisoned, how should they be punished? The thesis explores existent theories of punishment and responses to crime (retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restoration) to assess whether they are well-suited, or badly-suited, to dealing with corporate crime. It advances proposals and recommendations for improving corporate criminal liability standards, and how punishment of corporations might be reformed. The thesis brings new insights to corporate crime and punishment through the concept of ‘restorative justice.
|
|---|
