NCJ Number
150644
Journal
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Volume: 525 Dated: (January 1993) Pages: 134-146
Date Published
1993
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This paper offers several arguments for and against applying criminal sanctions to environmental offenders; arguments for criminalization are based on deterrence and a moral imperative to punish those who threaten human health or destroy natural resources, while arguments against criminalization are based primarily on procedural and cost issues.
Abstract
The use of criminal sanctions to protect the environment is increasingly advocated worldwide. The reasons given are straightforward: businesses will most readily respond to criminal sanctions; and criminal penalties, especially imprisonment, reflect complaints that the criminal justice system is biased against common offenders and favors individuals who commit white collar crimes. Arguments against criminalizing environmental law emphasize its high costs, procedural complexity, and potential overkill effects. Criminal sanctions may have a deterrent effect and may be morally necessary, but they are infrequently imposed for environmental offenses because intent and responsibility are usually difficult to establish. Moreover, when criminal charges are brought for environmental offenses, they may be withdrawn. Although arguments against criminalizing environmental law are numerous, even a small number of successful prosecutions may encourage individuals and firms to comply with environmental laws and protect the environment. 43 footnotes