Applying The Rome Statutes Complementarity Principle: Drawing Lessons From The Prosecution of Core Crimes by States Acting Under the Universality Principle

Criminal Law Forum -     

The Consequences of Knowledge about Elite Deviance

The present study sought to understand the consequences of knowledge about elite deviance. Four hundred and eight participants completed an online questionnaire that measured (1) their level of knowledge about white-collar crime and (2) their perceived seriousness of, and punitiveness toward, it. Results of statistical analyses suggest a positive relationship between knowledge and punitive sentiments toward crimes of the powerful. Conversely, less knowledgeable subjects, comprised disproportionately of men, politically Conservatives, Republicans, and conservative Protestants were often more lenient toward elite offenders, both in terms of perceived seriousness of the offenses and punitiveness toward them, when compared with street crime. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A Comparison of Perceived Seriousness and Punitiveness

Recent studies have challenged traditional wisdom regarding public apathy about white-collar crime by revealing equal or greater perceived seriousness of these offenses among respondents relative to traditional crime. Nevertheless, subjects in those studies were generally asked to contrast white-collar crime scenarios with a non-violent street crime baseline vignette. Perhaps a violent street crime would have invited lower perceived seriousness for the white-collar offenses. Participants in the present study were asked to (1) read vignettes describing violent street crimes and physically harmful white-collar crimes, (2) compare their seriousness, and (3) determine appropriate sanctions. Subjects perceived the violent crime scenarios presented to them to be more serious than the harmful white-collar crime vignettes. Further, they were less punitive toward white-collar offenders compared with street criminals. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Accountability for Corporate Human Rights Abuses: Lessons from the Possible Exercise of Dutch National Criminal Jurisdiction over Multinational Corporations

In the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, little emphasis has been put on the criminal law as a mechanism to hold corporations to account. From a doctrinal perspective, the main stumbling block for a more intensive use of the criminal law appears to be how to establish jurisdiction and liability with regard to corporate involvement in human rights violations in transnational supply-chains. On closer inspection, however, domestic criminal law offers surprising, although largely untested opportunities in this respect. Criminal liability could notably be based on violations of a corporate duty of care violation, whereas jurisdiction could, relatively non-controversially, be grounded on the principles of territoriality, nationality, and universality. The Dutch criminal law system is used as a case-study in this article.     

Cognitive Dissonance Resolution Strategies After Exposure to Corporate Violence Scenarios

This study uses cognitive dissonance as a theoretical avenue to identify factors that might hinder the public’s acceptance of incontrovertible facts about corporate violence (i.e., the calculated endangerment of civilians, workers, and customers). Three hundred and twenty-seven participants answered a survey that measured their (1) support for capitalism, (2) level of nationalism, (3) socio-demographic characteristics, and (3) attitudes toward three scenarios describing corporate violence cases. These attitudes comprised participants’ (a) acceptance of the scenarios as true, (b) perceived seriousness of the cases presented to them, and (c) support for several statements made to justify the companies’ actions. Results of statistical analyses suggest that subjects who scored higher on the nationalism and pro-capitalism scales were less likely to rate the cases as serious, and more inclined to rationalize the corporations’ actions. These findings imply that myth adherence might lead business supporters and nationalists to reject inconvenient truths relative to crimes of the powerful, which would then undermine the effect of increased awareness on prosecutorial efforts against corporate crime in the U.S.