Re-imagining crime prevention: controlling corporate crime?

While the discourses and practices of crime prevention are of increasing salience, few criminologists have sought the inclusion of corporate illegalities on such agendas. Relatedly, within criminology, there has been a diminished tendency to think in idealistic, utopian and emancipatory terms. This paper is one small attempt to think in precisely such terms.¹ But it is not an exercise in pure imagination. In particular, the paper makes extended reference to Finland, where recent experience suggests that corporate crime prevention may be feasible, under certain conditions, albeit subject to certain limitations. Thus we consider both the desirability and the feasibility of corporate crime prevention intruding upon the generally narrowly constructed terrain of ‘crime prevention’. We begin with a critique of some of the key aspects of crime prevention discourses – at both theoretical and practical levels – with a particular emphasis upon the extent to which these are both more appropriately and usefully applied to corporate crime prevention, before going on to discuss corporate crime prevention ‘in action’, through a focus upon recent developments in Finland. In a concluding section, we consider various aspects of both the desirability and feasibility of corporate crime prevention.     

Examining the research underlying the sentencing guidelines concept in Denver,Colorado: A partial replication of a reform effort

This paper examines the empirical basis for the criminal sentencing guidelines developed in Denver, Colorado. Unlike many other sentencing reforms, such guidelines have generally been developed out of an empirical analysis of past sentencing decisions, which identifies those variables most predictive of sentence. Empirical arguments, as a part of a reform effort, are often more persuasive than nonempirical arguments. However, when the analysis is inadequate or faulty, the resultant reform effort may be called into question.Presented in this paper is a reanalysis of the original data used to develop the Denver guidelines. Questions are raised regarding implications of extensive missing observations across cases and the resulting shrinkage of cases available for multivariate analyses. The original data is reanalyzed in both its original form and in a more complete form by estimating the missing data through a complex regression technique. Our analyses suggest that there are serious methodological weaknesses in the original study. The implications of these weaknesses are discussed.