Condemnation Without Basis: An Expressive Failure of Corporate Prosecutions
Gregory M. Gilchrist
University of Toledo College of Law
November 13, 2012
64 Hastings Law Journal 1121 (2013)
University of Toledo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-23
This is the second of two Articles on the expressive aspects of corporate criminal liability. The first Article argued that to justify imposing criminal liability on corporations we must refer to the expressive function of criminal liability. This Article considers the expressive function of actual corporate prosecutions and identifies aspects of corporate prosecutions that generate expressive costs rather than benefits. These are the expressive failures of corporate prosecutions. This Article identifies a number of these failures and introduces a model of perceived legitimacy and the expressive function of punishment that explains how expressive failures harm the legal system. Mere respondeat superior liability — holding corporations criminally liable where there is no basis to condemn the corporation qua corporation — is the most significant expressive failure. It is also the easiest to fix: Allow corporations a good-faith defense against criminal liability. Good faith defenses have been proposed before, but this is the first proposal based on the expressive impact of the defense. A good faith defense will limit the application of corporate criminal liability to those instances where there is a basis to condemn the corporation as a whole, thus realigning the expression inherent in criminal punishment with commonly held views about blaming corporations.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 51
Keywords: Corporate Criminal Liability, White Collar, Legitimacy, Expressivism, Internal View, Good Faith Defense
Date posted: November 14, 2012 ; Last revised: August 20, 2013
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.203 seconds