To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Abstract: This chapter examines what is known about corporate crime deterrence in hopes of identifying legal strategies that can prevent such crimes and their often-immense harms against consumers, competitors, employees, creditors, and owners. In this chapter, we rely heavily on results from a meta-analytic study of corporate crime deterrence research but also examine the extant literature in an effort to summarize what formal mechanisms might be effective in promoting compliance. Despite increasing awareness of the frequency and consequences of these violations, research has produced almost no conclusive recommendations. We find that simply making new corporate crime laws is ineffective, while actual criminal justice sanctions (e.g., arrest, incarceration) seem to be inconsistently effective. There is some support for the use of fines and monetary sanctions (both civil and criminal) in producing compliance, but financial penalties seem to be effective only in the short term and only when they are very high. Furthermore, in our review, regulatory sanctions seem to be effective against individual-level offending, but these sanctions have wildly inconsistent impacts when leveled against corporations. We discuss the dire need for more research, offering specific suggestions for scholarship.
Single cases of corporate malfeasance often cause more financial and physical damage than an entire year's worth of “conventional” crimes, yet systematic data collection on these behaviors is wanting. A cohesive body of knowledge is imperative to stimulate theory and policy making that will allow for the prevention of harm caused by powerful corporations. This chapter reviews what is known about corporate malfeasance from a criminological perspective. Specifically, we describe current issues in defining corporate behaviors as crime, explore four types of harm and the scope of harm caused by corporate crime, provide theoretical explanations for crime, and appraise current strategies used to prevent and intervene in cases of corporate malfeasance. We conclude with suggestions for improving research endeavors in this field and the importance of such research for policymaking efforts.
People with a history of self-harm are at a far greater risk of suicide than the general population. However, the relationship between self-harm and suicide is complex.
To undertake the first systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of risk factors and risk assessment scales to predict suicide following self-harm.
We conducted a search for prospective cohort studies of populations who had self-harmed. For the review of risk scales we also included studies examining the risk of suicide in people under specialist mental healthcare, in order to broaden the scope of the review and increase the number of studies considered. Differences in predictive accuracy between populations were examined where applicable.
Twelve studies on risk factors and 7 studies on risk scales were included. Four risk factors emerged from the metaanalysis, with robust effect sizes that showed little change when adjusted for important potential confounders. These included: previous episodes of self-harm (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.68, 95% CI 1.38–2.05, K = 4), suicidal intent (HR = 2.7, 95% CI 1.91–3.81, K = 3), physical health problems (HR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.16–3.43, K = 3) and male gender (HR = 2.05, 95% CI 1.70–2.46, K = 5). The included studies evaluated only three risk scales (Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), Suicide Intent Scale (SIS) and Scale for Suicide Ideation). Where meta-analyses were possible (BHS, SIS), the analysis was based on sparse data and a high heterogeneity was observed. The positive predictive values ranged from 1.3 to 16.7%.
The four risk factors that emerged, although of interest, are unlikely to be of much practical use because they are comparatively common in clinical populations. No scales have sufficient evidence to support their use. The use of these scales, or an over-reliance on the identification of risk factors in clinical practice, may provide false reassurance and is, therefore, potentially dangerous. Comprehensive psychosocial assessments of the risks and needs that are specific to the individual should be central to the management of people who have self-harmed.
Internalised stigma in young people meeting criteria for at-risk mental states (ARMS) has been highlighted as an important issue, and it has been suggested that provision of cognitive therapy may increase such stigma.
To investigate the effects of cognitive therapy on internalised stigma using a secondary analysis of data from the EDIE-2 trial.
Participants meeting criteria for ARMS were recruited as part of a multisite randomised controlled trial of cognitive therapy for prevention and amelioration of psychosis. Participants were assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months using measures of psychotic experiences, symptoms and internalised stigma.
Negative appraisals of experiences were significantly reduced in the group assigned to cognitive therapy (estimated difference at 12 months was −1.36 (95% Cl −2.69 to −0.02), P = 0.047). There was no difference in social acceptability of experiences (estimated difference at 12 months was 0.46, 95% Cl −0.05 to 0.98, P = 0.079).
These findings suggest that, rather than increasing internalised stigma, cognitive therapy decreases negative appraisals of unusual experiences in young people at risk of psychosis; as such, it is a non-stigmatising intervention for this population.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.