Acceso usuarios
Joseph F.C. DiMento
ABSTRACT: In the United States, the overwhelming majority of environmental violations are committed by business es, which raises questions about when corporations sbould be prosecuted for environmental cnmes. I argue that both corporations and individuals sbould be held accountable for environmental crimes but that prosecutors sbould exercise their discretion to ensure that criminal prosecution is reseroed for the most egregious environmental violations. In tbis article, I review the broad doctrine of corporate criminalliability in the United States, which allows corporations to be held vicariously responsible for the acts of their employees or agents, ticommitted within the scope of the employment or agency and for tbe benefit of the corporation. I address how prosecutors exercise their discretion to narrow the broad scope of corporate criminalliability and why reliance on prosecutorial discretion malees more sense than proposed reforms to corporate criminallaw that would focus on the role of senior management and/or a compliance program defense. I explain why prosecuting corporations is essential to environmental protection through lato, even though corporations cannot be jailed, because corporate criminal prosecution serues retributive, utilitarian, and expressiue purposes of punisbment.
I. Introduction. - lI. Some Data First. - A. Population trends. - B. Environmental trends.
- IlI. "Environrnental Law". - Typology of [global) environmental challenges. - A. The law then.
- B. The law now. - C. Main Approaches to Environmental Law. - Citizen suits - Information dissemination. - Markets. - Taxes. - Command and control. - ADR, Alternative dispute resolution. - Liability schemes mainly domes tic. - IV. Lessons Learned. - V Conclusion .
