Advertisement

Conclusion

Chapter
  • 134 Downloads
Part of the Critical Criminological Perspectives book series (CCRP)

Abstract

This concluding chapter is a summary of the book. It reintroduces its scope by exploring the issue of the under-criminalisation of occupational health and safety (OHS) crimes and the reason it is important to take this issue as the pivotal point for the development of future regulatory enforcement policies. The chapter argues that academics should propose law enforcement policies that are capable of achieving consistent and proportionate responses across the criminal law spectrum, rather than just reasonable responses for OHS duty holders. The chapter pools together law procedural traditions and practices, historical decisions and policy developments and incident and enforcement trends to conclude that the under-criminalisation of these crimes is caused by embedded discriminatory policies and practices in contemporary nation-states’ legal and political systems.

Keywords

Occupational health and safety enforcement Under-criminalisation Safety crimes Britain Italy Separation of power doctrine Due-process Crime-control Civil rights State’s role Regulation Enforcement policies Consistent responses Proportionate responses Inequality Social injustice Harm Italian constitution Costituzione italiana Global pressures neo-liberalism Keynesian Liberal values State’s legitimacy Criminal justice system legitimacy 

References

  1. Bardach, E., & Kagan, R. A. (1982). Going by the book: The problem of regulatory unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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(1983), 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.
  7. Braithwaite, J. (1987). Negotiation versus litigation: Industry regulation in Great Britain and the United States. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 2(1987), 559–574.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Calamandrei, P. (1955, January 26). Discorso sulla Costitutzione. Speech delivered to the Milan Societa Umanitaria. Available from: http://www.napoliassise.it/costituzione/discorsosullacostituzione.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2018.
  10. Caracciolo, L. (2015). La Costituzione nella palude: Indagine su trattati al di sotto di ogni sospetto. Imprimatur: Reggio Emilia.Google Scholar
  11. Carson, W. G. (1970a, October). White collar crime and the enforcement of factory legislation, British Journal of Criminology, 10(4), 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson, W. G. (1970b). Some sociological aspects of strict liability and the enforcement of factory legislation. Modern Law Review, 33, 396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carson, W. G. (1979). The conventionalisation of early factory crime. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 7, 37–60.Google Scholar
  14. 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.
  15. Council of Europe. (2010, December 17–18). European standards as regards the independence of the judicial system: Part II—The prosecution service. Study N° 494/2008, CDL-AD(2010)040, January 3. Adopted by the European Commission for Democracy Through Law at its 85th Plenary Session (Venice) [Online]. Available from: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2010)040-e. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
  16. 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
  17. Damaŝka, M. R. (1986). The faces of justice and state authority: A comparative approach to the legal process. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Delle Fave, C. (2013). Manuale di polizia giudiziaria. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggiole Editore.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Dubini, R. (2001). Articolo 2087 del codice civile. L’obbligo del datore di lavoro di attenersi al principio della massima sicurezza tecnologicamente fattibile. Sicurezza tecnica, organizzativa e procedural [Online]. Available from: http://www.dbworld.it/file/studi/2087_1329822805.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2014.
  21. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Duckworth Press.Google Scholar
  22. Edwards v. National Coal Board. (1949). 1 All ER 743.Google Scholar
  23. English Oxford Dictionary. (2017). Discretion. In The English Oxford dictionary [Online]. Available from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discretion. Accessed 17 Aug 2017.
  24. European Commission. (2007). Improving quality at work: Community strategy 2007–2012 on health and safety at work. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2007) 62 [Online]. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52007DC0062. Accessed 30 Jan 2018.
  25. European Commission. (2012). Enforcement of fundamental workers’ rights. Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union. ISBN: 978-92-823-3831-5.  https://doi.org/10.2861/1781 [Online]. Available from: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/2b47fb86-73eb-4354-b5ef-996c3d461e25. Accessed 30 Jan 2018.
  26. Fioravanti, M. (2011). Le dottrine dello stato e della costituzione. In R. Romanelli (Ed.), Storia dello Stato Italiano dall’unità ad Oggi. Donzelli: Italy.Google Scholar
  27. 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.
  28. Galligan, D. J. (1986). Discretionary powers. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  29. Gustapane, A. (2012). Il ruolo del pubblico ministero nella Costituzione italiana. Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hawkins, K. (1984). Environment and enforcement: Regulation and the social definition of pollution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hawkins, K. (2002). Law as last resort: Prosecution decision-making in a regulatory agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. HSE. (2015). HSE enforcement policy statement [Online]. Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse41.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2018.
  33. Hutter, B. (1997). Compliance: Regulation and environment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Malleson, T. (2016). Fired up about capitalism, between the lines. Toronto: Between the Lines.Google Scholar
  36. Mousourakis, G. (2015). Roman law and the origins of the civil law tradition. Basel: 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Ogus, A. (1994). Regulation: Legal form and economic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of criminal sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pais, P. R. (2008). Nuova normativa di tutela e salute sui luoghi di lavoro. Roma: Epc.Google Scholar
  41. Porreca, G. (2008). Istituita con Il D. Lgs. n. 124/2004 La Diffida E La Prescrizione Obbligatoria Per Gli Ispettori Del Lavoro. Ma E’ Stata Fatta Chiarezza Sull’attivita’ Di P. G. In Materia Di Sicurezza Sul Lavoro? [Online]. Available from: http://www.porreca.it/Presentazione%20decreto%20funzioni%20ispettive.htm. Accessed 2 Oct 2008.
  42. Rausei, P (2006). Codice delle ispezioni Volume 1 e Volume 2. Italy: Kluwer Italia.Google Scholar
  43. Rausei, P. (2008). Vigilanza, ispezioni e sanzioni. La nuova disciplina. Italy: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
  44. Repubblica Italiana. (1994). Decreto Legislativo n. 626, 19 settembre 1994. Attuazione delle direttive 89/391/CEE, 89/654/CEE, 89/655/CEE, 89/656/CEE, 90/269/CEE, 90/270/CEE, 90/394/CEE, 90/679/CEE, 93/88/CEE, 95/63/CE, 97/42/CE, 98/24/CE, 99/38/CE, 99/92/CE, 2001/45/CE, 2003/10/CE, 2003/18/CE e 2004/40/CE riguardanti il miglioramento della sicurezza e della salute dei lavoratori durante il lavoro. Gazzetta Ufficiale n.265 del 12 novembre 1994. Supplemento Ordinario n. 141.Google Scholar
  45. Rinaldi, M. (2012). Il procedimento ispettivo. Italia: Giuffrè Ediotore.Google Scholar
  46. Sanders, A., & Young, R. (2007). Criminal justice (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Slapper, G. (2000). Blood in the bank: Social and legal aspects of death at work. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  48. Snider, L. (1991). The regulatory dance: Understanding reform processes in corporate crime. International Journal of Sociology of Law, 19(2), 209–237.Google Scholar
  49. Taylor, A. J. (1972). Laissez-faire and state intervention in nineteenth-century Britain. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tombs, S., & Whyte, D. (2008). A crisis of enforcement: The decriminalisation of death and injury at work (pp. 1746–6938). London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies [Online]. Available from: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/crisisenforcementweb.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2014.
  51. Tombs, S., & Whyte, D. (2010). Regulatory surrender: Death, injury and the non-enforcement of law. Liverpool: Institute of Employment Rights.Google Scholar
  52. Vile, M. J. C. (1963). Constitutionalism and Separation of Powers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  53. Warwick, P. (2006). Policy Horizons and Parliamentary Government. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zagrebelsky, G. (2013). Fondata sul lavoro. La solitudine dell’articolo 1. Bologna: Einaudi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesUniversity of RoehamptonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations