NCJ Number
86628
Journal
Wisconsin Law Review Volume: 5 Dated: (1981) Pages: 970-1017
Date Published
1981
Length
49 pages
Annotation
This paper reviews ways that community service has been used as a sanction against corporations, offers a scenario applying this option to an environmental offense by a corporation, and evaluates the general use of community service orders to handle corporate offenders.
Abstract
Provisions now authorizing community service orders as a sanction do not extend to corporations. However, community service has been imposed on corporate offenders as a condition of probation in United States v. Clovis Retail Liquor Dealers Trade Association (1976), as a condition of mitigation of sentence as in United States v. Allied Chemical Corporation (1976), and as a condition of nonprosecution exemplified by the allegation that antitrust proceedings against ITT Corporation were compromised in return for a political campaign contribution. Because these approaches have not been satisfactory, the author proposes statutory authorization of community service orders along the lines of section 14 of the United Kingdom's Powers of Criminal Courts Act (1973) but designed to deal with the corporateness of corporate offenders. This discussion considers basic provisions, quantitative and temporal limits, types of community service projects, preservice and compliance reports, and procedures governing discharge of the order and noncompliance. The paper then describes what might have happened if this proposed law was applied to the Kepone case, United States v. Allied Chemical, and community service orders were issued against the corporation and the city of Hopewell. Potential advantages of the community service approach are detailed, such as providing a stronger catalyst to internal discipline than fines, improving targeting of sanctions against corporate offenders, stimulating constructive corporate reactions, and increasing flexibility in sentencing. The examination of community service orders' weaknesses focuses on problems of inefficacy, ineffectiveness, injustice, and uncertainty. The author largely attributes the lack of interest in making community service available as a sanction against corporations to the misconception that corporate crime is morally neutral or insignificant. The paper includes 249 footnotes.