{"title":"The Corporate Criminal as Scapegoat","authors":"Brandon L. Garrett","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2557465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A corporation is no scapegoat, assures the Department of Justice, because the first priority is to prosecute culpable individuals and not artificial entities. Yet, as I document in this empirical study, far more often than not, when the largest corporations settle federal criminal cases, no individuals are charged. High profile failures to prosecute executives in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis have only made the problem more urgent. The corporation appears to be a kind of a scapegoat: impossible to physically jail, but capable of receiving blame and punishment while individual culprits go free. In this Article, I develop original empirical data detailing the path of individual prosecutions accompanying federal corporate prosecution agreements. Only 34 percent of federal corporate deferred and non-prosecution agreements from 2001-2014 were accompanied by charges against individuals. Those prosecutions produced uneven results. Only 42 percent of those charged received any jail time. There were large numbers of outright losses: 15 percent terminated in acquittals or dismissals. Only a handful of the cases involved high-level executives. These findings illustrate the challenges posed by organizational complexity and the manner in which it can obscure fault. Contrary to the calls of prominent critics, I argue that bringing more individual criminal cases cannot adequately substitute for prosecuting companies. Instead, corporate prosecutions should be leveraged to enhance individual accountability. In conclusion, I propose statutory, sentencing, and policy changes to tighten the connection between individual and corporate accountability for crimes.","PeriodicalId":47840,"journal":{"name":"Virginia Law Review","volume":"101 1","pages":"1789"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virginia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2557465","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19
Abstract
A corporation is no scapegoat, assures the Department of Justice, because the first priority is to prosecute culpable individuals and not artificial entities. Yet, as I document in this empirical study, far more often than not, when the largest corporations settle federal criminal cases, no individuals are charged. High profile failures to prosecute executives in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis have only made the problem more urgent. The corporation appears to be a kind of a scapegoat: impossible to physically jail, but capable of receiving blame and punishment while individual culprits go free. In this Article, I develop original empirical data detailing the path of individual prosecutions accompanying federal corporate prosecution agreements. Only 34 percent of federal corporate deferred and non-prosecution agreements from 2001-2014 were accompanied by charges against individuals. Those prosecutions produced uneven results. Only 42 percent of those charged received any jail time. There were large numbers of outright losses: 15 percent terminated in acquittals or dismissals. Only a handful of the cases involved high-level executives. These findings illustrate the challenges posed by organizational complexity and the manner in which it can obscure fault. Contrary to the calls of prominent critics, I argue that bringing more individual criminal cases cannot adequately substitute for prosecuting companies. Instead, corporate prosecutions should be leveraged to enhance individual accountability. In conclusion, I propose statutory, sentencing, and policy changes to tighten the connection between individual and corporate accountability for crimes.
司法部(Department of Justice)保证,公司不是替罪羊,因为首要任务是起诉有罪的个人,而不是人为的实体。然而,正如我在这项实证研究中所记录的那样,当最大的公司与联邦刑事案件达成和解时,往往没有个人受到指控。在全球金融危机之后,高调未能起诉高管,只会让这个问题更加紧迫。该公司似乎是一个替罪羊:不可能把人关进监狱,但能够承受指责和惩罚,而个别罪犯却逍遥法外。在这篇文章中,我开发了原始的经验数据,详细说明了伴随联邦公司起诉协议的个人起诉路径。从2001年到2014年,只有34%的联邦公司暂缓起诉和不起诉协议伴随着对个人的指控。这些起诉产生了参差不齐的结果。只有42%的被控者被判入狱。有大量的直接损失:15%以无罪释放或解雇告终。只有少数案件涉及高层管理人员。这些发现说明了组织复杂性所带来的挑战,以及它可以掩盖错误的方式。与著名批评人士的呼吁相反,我认为,提起更多个人刑事案件并不能充分取代对企业的起诉。相反,应该利用公司起诉来加强个人问责。最后,我建议修改法律、量刑和政策,以加强个人和企业对犯罪的责任之间的联系。
期刊介绍:
The Virginia Law Review is a journal of general legal scholarship published by the students of the University of Virginia School of Law. The continuing objective of the Virginia Law Review is to publish a professional periodical devoted to legal and law-related issues that can be of use to judges, practitioners, teachers, legislators, students, and others interested in the law. First formally organized on April 23, 1913, the Virginia Law Review today remains one of the most respected and influential student legal periodicals in the country.