Realist Theory Supporting Corporate Criminal Liability

1808 Words8 Pages
The opponents of corporate criminal liability have asserted that the recognition of such liability violates the principle of personal punishment, which is one of the fundamental principles of criminal law. The principle of personal punishment requires punishment to be limited to the person who committed the crime only. Corporate criminal liability requires personal fault from a representative or employee. As the corporation is the default entity (inanimate), personal fault cannot be assigned to it legally, because it is unable to commit the crime by itself. So imposing the punishment on a legal person is impossible, because crimes are personal ,and can only be committed by natural persons. In addition, imposing punishment on a corporation…show more content…
Even in relation to financial punishments that can be imposed on a corporation, such as a fine, confiscation or closure, imposing these punishments will eventually lead to a breach of the principle of personal punishments. In other words, some employees who are not involved in the crime will be punished.
2. Approach Supporting Corporate Criminal Liability
A realist theory approach supporting corporate criminal liability can be traced back to the jurist, "Johannes Althusius", and was advocated by "Otton Von Gierke", who is recognized for challenging Roman Jurisprudence:
"According to this theory, a legal person is a real personality in an extra-juridical and pre-juridical sense of the word. The theory assumes that the subjects of rights are not limited to belong merely to human beings but to every being that possesses a will and life of its own. As such, being a juristic person and as 'alive' as the human being, a corporation is also subjected to rights. Under the realist theory, a corporation exists as an objectively real entity and the law merely recognizes and gives effect to its existence. The realist jurists also contend that the law has no power to create an entity but merely having the right to recognize or not to recognize an
…show more content…
It has nothing to do with the ability of a corporate legal person to be held liable for criminal activity. If the administrative law outlines the activity of the corporate legal person and restricts it within the scope of the objectives for which it was established. If a corporation commits illegal activities or illegal conduct, it should be held liable under appropriate civil and criminal laws. For example, a bank or company, in order to gain profit, might turn to smuggling operations or illegitimate speculation. This situation constitutes a danger for the interests of society, which requires punishing the entity. This is the argument of jurists who support corporate criminal liability as

More about Realist Theory Supporting Corporate Criminal Liability

Open Document