Tags: Online Creative Writing Degrees BachelorTransportation And Assignment Problems And SolutionsTopics To Write A Research Paper OnIntroduction For Water Pollution EssayGirl With A Pearl Earring Theme EssayFiction Essay Examples
This will enable the dissertation to evenly address arguments in favour of collective responsibility and individual responsibility.
Assuming that an individual could be located, it would then need to be proven that he/she harboured the requisite components of gross negligence manslaughter – death following a gross breach of duty, which posed a significant risk.
Members of larger companies do not typically implement the decisions that they have made, rendering it notoriously difficult to impose liability. An alternative approach is offered by tort law, which seeks to eliminate the problems that plague the identification doctrine.
As your dissertation is a larger piece of writing you should have a title page.
Your School should provide you with a standard Solent University dissertation cover.
Much academic attention has been given to this topic, and the courts have also sought to expand upon how the law may be applied to hold companies liable for criminal conduct.
The identification doctrine arose as a consequence of the courts’ attempts to apply to companies.This sample law dissertation proposal was written by one of our expert writers, to give you a taste of the work we produce.You can also check out the plagiarism report delivered free with every essay!This book takes you through all the elements needed for a successful dissertation proposal and dissertation.The book explains the sections required for both proposal and dissertation, and offers helpful downloadable templates to assist with the presentation.Criminal liability was gradually extended so that criminal liability could be imposed upon commercial companies for offences such as nonfeasance. The increased impact that companies have grown to have on society over the years has fuelled the increased willingness to regulate and impose criminal liability on companies for their criminal conduct. As the 19 century came to an end, it had become clear that companies could and should be held liable for statutory crimes, and punished by fines.This brief historical overview demonstrates that two main factors fuelled the imposition of liability upon companies for criminal conduct. Much media attention was given to corporate disasters that had been caused by negligence, and which had resulted in many deaths. The second factor was that employment-related fatalities were unsuccessfully tried, revealing the inability to hold companies liable under traditional criminal law principles. It is therefore necessary to examine how companies may be held liable for criminal conduct, whether collective individual responsibility should be imposed, and how the law may be reformed to hold companies liable for criminal conduct.This has been recognised by Bebb, who argues that ‘the legal debate as to whether a defendant is so senior as to embody the company will be replaced by a similar debate as to whether or not the defendants are senior managers…an issue that should be relevant to sentencing but not liability’. Academic literature therefore recognises that, while the current system in the UK has seen some improvements, problems remain, indicating the potential need for further reform.The Act is also very narrow in its approach towards corporate crime, because it only imposes liability upon companies for organisational failures resulting in death.Clarkson for example argues that is problematic because it ‘still requires an individual to be identified within the corporate structure whose acts and knowledge can be attributed to the company’. It has also been argued that, while companies are essentially ‘only metaphysical entities’, they can still be held liable if their ‘rules, policies and operational procedures’ indicate the requisite level of Such an approach essentially avoids the application of the strict identification doctrine, because it applies an extreme form of the aggregation principle. It may therefore be argued that enforcing an approach based upon the aggregation doctrine would ease the problems posed by the identification doctrine, providing a potential alternative to the approach that is currently adopted in the UK. In an attempt to adopt a more suitable approach towards corporate liability, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (CMCHA 2007) was implemented. Under the Act, the statutory offence of corporate manslaughter is created, and the common law offence of corporate manslaughter following gross negligence is abolished.Attention is directed towards the cause of death, requiring that the management of the activities of the company have brought it about, and that it amount to a gross breach of duty of care owed to the deceased. Most importantly, liability for the offence cannot be imposed upon an individual, which has attracted much academic praise. Liable companies may be fined, and/or issued with a remedial and/or publicity order, indicating the Act’s modernised and more appropriate approach towards corporate crime, as has been recognised in existing literature. Slye has for example noted that, because it attaches primary importance to a company’s systems as causative of a crime, the number of individuals implementing the system becomes irrelevant. The company system itself is examined, meaning that attention is directed towards relevant issues, and the imposition of liability under the Act depends upon ‘a form of ameliorated aggregation’. Furthermore, management failure remedies problems posed by the identification doctrine, because the involvement and participation of senior managers only need to form a substantial and not a complete proportion of the breach of duty of care. Therefore, when employees and non-senior members participate, the imposition of criminal liability will not be frustrated and the manager’s role will not be undermined in relation to the practice of proving liability. The CMCHA 2007 has also been criticised by academics, mainly on the basis that it has not clarified what a non-senior member actually is, particularly an employee. This means that companies could outsource any important decisions that run a high risk of causing death, meaning that they may not be attributed to any particular, identifiable members.