Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2017
  • Online publication date: March 2017

c - Mental Blockades in the Recognition of Mens Rea in Corporations

from 6 - The Corporation and Crime

Summary

Introduction

Criminal responsibility of legal corporations is an inherently contested issue. In a famous contribution on the topic, written in 1957, Gerhard Mueller asserted that, while common law countries had embraced the idea of criminal liability for corporations and the US Model Penal Code contained explicit regulations, the majority of civil law states still adhered to the maxim societas delinquere non potest (Mueller, 1957–1958: 28). The reasons for this reluctance are not hard to grasp. Corporations are abstract entities that cannot ‘act’ or ‘think’ for themselves. Holding them criminally responsible would flout the classic criminal law requirements of actus reus and mens rea. Moreover – and closely related to the previous point – a corporation is insensitive to punishment, because it has ‘no soul to damn and no body to be kicked’.

Meanwhile, in half a century, opinions and legal practice have changed. Nowadays, it is fairly universally acknowledged that corporations can cause widespread mischief by producing disasters, extensive pollution and even by being complicit in war crimes. Borrowing from the solutions advanced in the common law tradition, many civil law systems have gradually introduced legislation on corporate criminal responsibility. They have tried to overcome the conceptual hurdles by identifying corporations with their organs or representatives, by imputing the latter's conduct and intentions to the corporation or by simply holding the ‘corporate culture’ responsible. Such initiatives have been prompted by the considerations that corporations sometimes gain huge profits at the expense of human happiness, that managers are often quite successful in hiding behind the corporate veil and that corporations can be painfully hurt. After all, they have ‘deep pockets’ and can be heavily fined; they are sensitive to loss of reputation; they can be excluded from all kinds of public benefits and tax exemptions; and they can, as a measure of last resort, even be dissolved. At the supra-national level such legislative activities are encouraged or even prescribed.

In spite of these developments, criminal corporate liability is still a problem nagging many people at the back of their minds. An important state like Germany is still adamant to keep corporations out of the grip of criminal law (Weigend, 2008). Moreover, corporate criminal responsibility is absent in all the statutes of the international criminal tribunals, including the Rome Statute.

Ashworth, Andrew (1999) Principles of Criminal Law, edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Chapman, Andrew (2008) ‘Extending international criminal law beyond the individual to corporations and armed opposition groups’, Journal of International Criminal Justice 6: 899–926.
Coffee, C. Jr (1981) ‘“No soul to damn, no body to kick”, an unscandalized inquiry into the problem of corporate punishment’, Michigan Law Review 79: 386–459.
Coke, Edward (1817 [1628]) The Institutes of the Laws of England (London).
Devesa, Jose Maria Rodriguez, and Gomez, Alfonso Serrano (1994) Derecho penal Espaňo; parte general, edn. (Dykinson: Madrid).
Duff, R. A. (2011) Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Feinberg, Joel (1970) Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Fisse, Brent and Braithwaite, John (1986–1988) ‘The allocation of responsibility for corporate crime: individualism, collectivism and accountability11 Sydney Law Review 468–513.
Fletcher, George, P. (1983) Basic Concepts of Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Fletcher, George, P. (2000) Rethinking Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Fletcher, George, P. (2007) The Grammar of Criminal Law: Vol. 1, Foundations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Hörnle, T. (2008) ‘Die verfassungsrechtliche Begründung des Schuldprinzips’, in Sieber, U. et al, (eds,) Strafrecht und Wirtschaftsstrafrecht – Dogmatik, Rechtsvergleich, Rechtstatsachen (Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag), 325–345.
Hullu, J. (2012) Materieel Strafrecht, edn. (Kluwer: Deventer).
Jakobs, Günther (1993) Strafrecht Allgemeiner, Teil 2 (Berlin and New York: Auflage).
Kyriakakis, Joanna (2007) ‘Australian prosecution of corporations for international crimes: the potential of the commonwealth criminal code’, Journal of International Criminal Justice 5: 809–826.
Mueller, Gerhard O. W. (1957–1958) ‘Mens rea and the corporation: a study on the model penal code position on corporate criminal liability’, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 19: 21–50.
Ratner, S. R. (2001) ‘Corporations and human rights: a theory of legal responsibility’, Yale Law Journal 111(3): 443–545.
Roxin, Claus (1994) Täterschaft und Taherrschaft 6 (Berlin/New York: Auflage).
Ruggie, J. (2008) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework (New York and Geneva: UNHCR).
Simon, Herbert (1965) Administrative Behavior, edn. (New York: The Free Press).
Stewart, James G. (2012) ‘The end of “modes of liability” for international crimes’, Leiden Journal of International Law 25: 165–219.
Stewart, James G. (2014) ‘The turn to corporate criminal liability for international crimes: transcending the Alien Tort Statute’, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 47, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2354443.
Stoitchkova, Desislava (2010) Towards Corporate Liability in International Criminal Law (Doctoral Dissertation: Utrecht University).
Strawson, P. F. (1973) ‘Freedom and resentment’, in Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays (London: Methuen), 1–25.
van der Wilt, Harmen (2013) ‘Corporate criminal responsibility for international crimes: exploring the possibilities’, Chinese Journal of International Law 12(1): 43–77.
Weigend, T. (2008) ‘“Societas delinquere non potest?” A German perspective’, Journal of International Criminal Justice 6(5): 927–945.
Wells, Celia (2001) Corporations and Criminal Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Welzel, H. (1969) Das Deutsche Strafrecht, edn. (Berlin: de Gruyter).
Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Judgment, Case No IT-95–17/1-T, 10 December 1998.
Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Judgment, ICC-01/04–01/06, 14 March 2012.
Prosecutor v. Semanza, Judgment, Case No ICTR-87–20-T, 15 May 2003.
United States v. Goering, Judgment, International Military Tribunal, 1 October 1946, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression: opinion and Judgment, 110, 1947.