Understanding the seriousness of corporate crime: Some lessons for the new 'corporate manslaughter' offence

The measurement of public attitudes towards the criminal law has become an important area of research in recent years because of the perceived desirability of ensuring that the legal system reflects broader societal values. In particular, studies into public perceptions of crime seriousness have attempted to measure the degree of concordance that exists between law and public opinion in the organization and enforcement of criminal offences. These understandings of perceived crime seriousness are particularly important in relation to high-profile issues where public confidence in the law is central to the legal agenda, such as the enforcement of work-related fatality cases. A need to respond to public concern over this issue was cited as a primary justification for the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. This article will suggest that, although literature looking at the perceived seriousness of corporate crime and, particularly, health and safety offences is limited in volume and generalist in scope, important lessons can be gleaned from existing literature, and pressing questions are raised that demand further empirical investigation.

An inspector's-eye view - The prospective enforcement of work-related fatality cases

This paper concerns the prospective implementation of the proposed 'corporate killing' offence. These proposals suggested that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)-the body currently responsible for regulating work-related health and safety issues-should handle cases in which a 'corporate killing' charge is a possibility. Relatively little attention has been paid to this issue of implementation. An empirical investigation was undertaken to assess the compatibility of the HSE's methodology and enforcement philosophy with the new offence. It was found that inspectors categorize themselves as enforcers of criminal law, see enforcement action as valuable and support the new offence, but disagree over its use. They also broadly supported the HSE taking responsibility for the new offence. This suggests that 'corporate killing' may not necessarily be incompatible with the HSE's modus operandi, and there may be positive reasons forgiving the HSE this responsibility.

Juror stereotypes and blame attribution in rape cases involving intoxicants - The findings of a pilot study

Prior to recent legislative changes, sexual offences were contained in a combination of statutory provisions and common law that was criticized as being ill-equipped to tackle the intricacies of modern sexual (mis)behaviour. This pilot study explored the capacity of these provisions to address the complexities of drug-assisted rape using focus groups and a trial simulation to identify factors which influenced jurors in rape trials involving intoxicants. The findings revealed that jurors considered numerous extra-legal factors when reaching a decision: rape myths, misconceptions about the impact of intoxicants and factors such as the motivation of the defendant in administering an intoxicant. This paper draws upon these findings, focusing in particular on the interaction between juror attributions of blame and stereotypical conceptions about intoxication, sexual consent and drug-assisted rape. The findings of this pilot study form the basis for a larger-scale project (ESRC -funded, commenced January 2004) that examines this interaction in the context of new provisions under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Mediating punitiveness: understanding public attitudes towards work-related fatality cases

This paper concerns an empirical investigation into public attitudes towards work-related fatality cases, where organizational offenders cause the death of workers or members of the public. This issue is particularly relevant following the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 into UK law. Here, as elsewhere, the use of criminal law against companies reflects governmental concerns over public confidence in the law’s ability to regulate risk. The empirical findings demonstrate that high levels of public concern over these cases do not translate into punitive attitudes. Such cases are viewed rationally and constructively, and lead to instrumental rather than purely expressive enforcement preferences.

Communication and social regulation. the criminalization of work-related death

This paper addresses the movement towards criminalization as a tool for the regulation of work-related deaths in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the last 20 years. This can be seen as reflecting dissatisfaction with the relevant law, although it is best understood in symbolic terms as a response to a disjunction between the instrumental nature and communicative aspirations of regulatory law. This paper uses empirical data gathered from interviews with members of the public to explore the role that such an offence might play. The findings demonstrate that the failures of regulatory law give rise to a desire for criminalization as a means of framing work-related safety events in normative terms.