Discussion Questions: Corporation Can Only Act Through Its D ✓ Solved

Discussion Questiona Corporation Can Only Act Through Its Directors

A corporation can only act through its directors, officers and employees. Does the justification for corporate criminal responsibility make sense? Are there any specific exceptions where it should be used? In your opinion, would it be better to not hold corporations criminally responsible in favor of criminally prosecuting the corporate employees who committed the crimes? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The principle that corporations can only act through their directors, officers, and employees forms the cornerstone of corporate criminal liability. This framework posits that a corporation's actions are attributable to its human agents, making it rational to hold the corporation itself responsible for criminal conduct. The justification for corporate criminal responsibility primarily rests on the idea of fairness and accountability, recognizing that corporations have legal personalities distinct from their members. This enables the law to impose sanctions or penalties on corporations, such as fines, which serve both punitive and deterrent functions (Krawiec & Shaffer, 2008).

However, there are notable exceptions where holding corporations criminally responsible may be problematic or insufficient. For instance, in cases where criminal acts are committed by individuals acting outside official corporate channels or due to a failure of oversight, traditional liability may be inadequate. Also, some argue that the corporate structure's complexity can obscure responsibility, making it challenging to attribute actions solely to its legal entity. In such situations, prosecuting individual employees might be more appropriate. For instance, in cases involving specific fraudulent schemes or violations, targeting individuals can yield more precise accountability, deterring misconduct effectively (Osofsky, 2018).

Deciding whether to prioritize corporate liability or individual prosecution involves considering the advantages and disadvantages. Holding corporations liable ensures that penalties can be substantial and serve as a broad deterrent, potentially influencing corporate culture more effectively (Clarke & McDonnell, 2014). Conversely, prosecuting individuals can foster personal accountability, potentially leading to more ethical corporate behavior, but it may be limited by evidentiary challenges and the difficulty of proving individual intent. While corporate liability can result in significant sanctions, it might also promote complacency if corporations simply pay fines without addressing underlying misconduct (Braithwaite, 2017). Conversely, focusing on individuals ensures accountability but may fail to impose sufficient deterrence on the corporation itself.

References

• Braithwaite, J. (2017). Responsive regulation and corporate crime: Beyond the compliance model. Routledge.
• Clarke, R. v., & McDonnell, M. (2014). Corporate criminal liability: An overview. Law Quarterly Review, 130(2), 221-250.
• Krawiec, K. D., & Shaffer, M. A. (2008). Getting the facts: The importance of empirical research in corporate law and governance. California Law Review, 96(3), 707–735.
• Osofsky, M. (2018). The limited efficacy of criminal sanctions for corporate misconduct. Harvard Law Review, 131, 1802–1844.