Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Politics and Practice of Occupational Health and Safety Law Enforcement pp 173–205Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Discretionary and Legal Consistency and Proportionality

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 221 Accesses

Part of the book series: Critical Criminological Perspectives ((CCRP))

Abstract

This chapter explores the relationship between the use of enforcement discretion and the achievement of fundamental modern principles of legal consistency, proportionality and fairness. The use of legal discretion is embedded in every level of the British criminal justice system but forbidden in Italy, especially within executive-directed law enforcement agencies. The use of discretion gives flexibility to officers and agencies, but it can create inconsistent and unproportionate responses of the criminal justice system to different crimes and social classes. In this context, discretion causes the under-criminalisation of occupational health and safety (OHS) crimes because these breaches are not treated the same as other similarly harmful crimes. In other words, regulatory unreasonableness caused by the strict application of the law is not, after all, unreasonable if the reactions to OHS crimes are compared to other similar harmful ones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to Damaŝka (1973), the establishment of prosecution services, such as the Crown Prosecution Service , in jurisdictions adopting an adversarial legal system is a recent phenomenon. In Scotland this responsibility is given to the Procurator Fiscal Service. See also footnote 2 in the second chapter (Histories and Traditions). It is important to note that these models are different in principle and that a lengthier and more in-depth analysis of these two jurisdictions’ criminal justice system policies might offer a richer account of their differences. Unfortunately, a lengthier and deeper analysis of the two jurisdictions’ criminal justice systems is beyond the primary scope of this research study.

  2. 2.

    More in England and Wales, as compared to Scotland.

  3. 3.

    The 1948 Italian Constitution employed the institutional separation principle because the post-war Italian political class wanted to ensure the preservation of individual civil liberties that were denied during Mussolini’s dictatorship (Fioravanti 2011).

  4. 4.

    The legal principle, to remind the reader, forbidding prosecutors (or Magistrates) to interrupt a court prosecution if there is sufficient evidence of criminal conduct.

  5. 5.

    Health and safety compensations have decreased since 2000 (Hazards Magazine 2013).

References

  • Baldwin, R., & Hawkins, K. (1984). Discretionary justice: Davis reconsidered. Public Law, 580(Winter), 570–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, R., & Veljanovski, C. G. (1984). Regulation by cost-benefit analysis. Public Administration, 62(Spring), 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardach, E., & Kagan, R. A. (1982). Going by the book: The problem of regulatory unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartrip, P. W. J., & Fenn, P. (1980a). The conventionalization of factory crime a re-assessment. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 8, 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartrip, P. W. J., & Fenn, P. (1980b). The administration of safety: The enforcement policy of the early factory inspectorate 1844–1864. Public Administration, 58(Spring), 87–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartrip, P. W. J., & Fenn, P. (1983). The evolution of regulatory style in the nineteenth century British factory inspectorate. Journal of Law and Society, 10, 201–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. S. (Ed.). (1964). The other side: Perspectives on deviance. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, J. (2001). Managing discretion. Paper presented at the ARLC conference [Online]. Available from: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/staff%20publications%20full%20text/black/alrc%20managing%20discretion.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2014.

  • Braithwaite, J. (1985). To punish or persuade: Enforcement of coal mine safety. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (1987). Negotiation versus litigation: Industry regulation in Great Britain and the United States. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 2, 559–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (1997). On speaking softly and carrying big sticks: Neglected dimensions of a republican separation of powers. University of Toronto Law Journal, 47(3), 305–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, W. G. (1970a). White collar crime and the enforcement of factory legislation. British Journal of Criminology, 10(4), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, W. G. (1970b). Some sociological aspects of strict liability and the enforcement of factory legislation. Modern Law Review, 33, 396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, W. G. (1979). The conventionalisation of early factory crime. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 7, 37–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Corporate Accountability (CCA). (2008). Fines against most companies convicted following work-related deaths less than 1/700th of their turnover, new research shows [Online]. Available from: http://www.corporateaccountability.org.uk/press_releases/2008/mar16sent.htm. Accessed 25 Aug 2014.

  • Cicourel, A. V. (1968). The social organization of juvenile justice. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaŝka, M. R. (1973). Evidentiary barriers to conviction and two models of criminal procedure: A comparative study. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 506, 1972–1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C. (2004). Making companies safe: What works? Centre for Corporate Accountability [Online]. Available from: http://www.unitetheunion.org/uploaded/documents/Making%20Companies%20Safe%20-%20what%20works%20(CCA-Unite%20paper)11-4856.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2014.

  • de Secondat, C.-L., & Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu. (2001). The spirit of the laws. (Translated from the French, by D. W. Carrithers & T. Nugent) Kitchener, ON: Batoche Books (Originally printed in 1748).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Duckworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1969). Judging delinquents: Context and process in juvenile court. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • English Oxford Dictionary. (2017). Discretion. In The English Oxford dictionary [Online]. Available from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discretion. Accessed 17 Aug 2017.

  • Fioravanti, M. (2011). Le dottrine dello stato e della costituzione. In R. Romanelli (Ed.), Storia dello Stato Italiano dall’unità ad Oggi. Roma: Donzelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fooks, G. (2008). The relationship between the levels of fines imposed upon companies convicted of health and safety offences resulting from deaths, and the turnover and gross profits of these companies. Centre for Corporate Accountability [Online]. Available from: http://www.corporateaccountability.org.uk/dl/manslaughter/reform/ccasentresearchmar08.doc. Accessed 25 Aug 2014.

  • Galligan, D. J. (1986). Discretionary powers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1970). Strategic interaction. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N., & Johnstone, R. (1999). Regulating workplace safety: System and sanctions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustapane, A. (2012). Il ruolo del pubblico ministero nella Costituzione italiana. Bologna: Bononia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, K. (1984). Environment and enforcement: Regulation and the social definition of pollution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, K. (2002). Law as last resort: Prosecution decision-making in a regulatory agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazards Magazine. (2013, April–June). Robbed! Bloody bandages but no bloody compensation. Hazards Magazine, Issue 122 [Online]. Available from: http://www.hazards.org/votetodie/robbed.htm. Accessed 25 Aug 2014.

  • HSE. (2013). Health and safety statistics [Online]. Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/index.htm. Accessed 25 Aug 2014.

  • HSE. (2015). HSE enforcement policy statement [Online]. Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse41.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2018.

  • Hutter, B. (1988). The reasonable arm of the law? The law enforcement procedures of environmental health officers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutter, B. (1997). Compliance: Regulation and environment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justice Committee. (2009). The crown prosecution service: Gatekeeper of the criminal justice system (Session 2008–2009, 9th Report) [Online]. London: Justice Committee Publications. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmjust/186/18602.htm. Accessed 25 Aug 2014.

  • Langbein, J. H., Lerner, R. L., & Smith, B. P. (2009). History of the common law: The development of Anglo-American legal institutions. New York: Aspen Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7355-6290-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legrand, P. (1996). European Legal Systems Are Not Converging. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 45(1), 52–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, P. K. (1977). Police work: The social organization of policing. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meindinger, E. (1986). Regulatory culture: A theoretical outline. Law and Policy, 9, 355–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousourakis, G. (2015). Roman Law and the Origins of the Civil Law Tradition. New York, Dordrecht and London: Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-319-12267-0; e-ISBN 978-3-319-12268-7; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12268-7.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nelken, D. (2010). Comparative criminal justice: Making sense of difference. London (UK), Thousand Oaks (CA), New Delhi (IND) and Singapore: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newburn, T., & Reiner, R. (2007). Policing and the police. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogus, A. (1994). Regulation: Legal form and economic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, P. (1992). Six cultures of regulation. Copenhagen: Handelshojskolen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of criminal sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D. W. (1983). Cost-benefit analysis. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, E. (2003, December). Transfer regulations and cost-effectiveness analysis. Duke Law Journal, 53(3), 1067–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2010). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology class and criminal justice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, A. J. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, B., Ogus, A., & Burrows, P. (1983). Policing pollution: A study of regulation and enforcement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, H. L. (1970). Settled out of court: The social process of insurance claims adjustment. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabine, G. H., & Thorson, T. L. (1973). A history of political theory. Hinsdale: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolnick, J. H. (1966). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in democratic society. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudnow, D. (1965). Normal crimes: Sociological features of the penal code in a public defender office. Social Problems, 12, 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tombs, S., & Whyte, D. (2007). Safety crimes. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tombs, S., & Whyte, D. (2009). A deadly consensus: Worker safety and regulatory degradation under New Labour. British Journal of Criminology, 52(5), 997–1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tombs, S., & Whyte, D. (2010). Regulatory surrender: Death, injury and the non-enforcement of law. Liverpool: Institute of Employment Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vile, M. J. C. (1963). Constitutionalism and Separation of Powers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, University of Roehampton, London, UK

    Diego Canciani

Authors
  1. Diego Canciani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diego Canciani .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Canciani, D. (2019). Discretionary and Legal Consistency and Proportionality. In: The Politics and Practice of Occupational Health and Safety Law Enforcement. Critical Criminological Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98509-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98509-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98508-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98509-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation