Fresh Look at the Responsible Relation Doctrine

• NCJ Number: 216767
• Journal: The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Volume: 96 Issue: 4 Dated: Summer 2006 Pages: 1245-1292
• Author(s): Todd S. Aagaard
• Date Published: 2006
• Length: 48 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article argues for a re-thinking of the responsible relation doctrine, which holds business officials, managers, and supervisors criminally responsible for failing to prevent or correct criminal violations that occur at work.

Abstract

The author’s review of two seminal Supreme Court cases--Dotterweich and Park, and a substantial body of case law to examine the responsible relation doctrine’s application to felony violations of Federal environmental laws, found that although much scholarly attention has been focused on the doctrine’s relationship to mental state, the doctrine actually addresses the act elements of a criminal offense and not mental state. The author goes on to argue that the conventional public welfare explanation for the doctrine, which points out the importance of deterring violations that threaten human health and safety, does not provide a principled justification for the doctrine. Moreover, the responsible relation doctrine cannot be justified as a form of aiding and abetting liability. On the other hand, the author illustrates how the responsible relation doctrine can be applied in a principled and justifiable manner to a variety of contexts in which an employer or manager is responsible for the prevention of violations of the law yet by omission fails to fulfill the responsibility. The main argument is that the responsible relation doctrine is best justified as following the traditional criminal law prohibitions on acts of omission. This means that individuals may be held criminally liable if their failure to fulfill employment responsibilities results in a harm that is punishable as a crime. Examples are presented of how the responsible relation doctrine should be applied in different situations, including situations involving affirmative misconduct rather than failure to act and situations where the defendant claims they did not have the capacity or ability to act (impossibility defense). By viewing the responsible relation doctrine through the lens of criminal omission law, important insights can be gained about how to apply this doctrine in situations that have not yet arisen in reported case law. Footnotes