Sociology

In today business world, corporate liabilities have become a major concern in the organization. This is due to the fact that the companys corporate team has to define rules and guidelines that help them to deal with any misconduct or a major crime committed by one of the team leader or the employees. In this case, companies management teams have to form a corporate compliance program to ensure that the companies are not exposed to criminal problem. This paper clearly analyzes the three articles by Geraghty, (2002), Poling, (2001) and Recine, (2002) concerning corporate criminals liability. The paper will also compare the two theoretical perspectives on punishment for corporate criminals espoused by optimal penalty theorists and retribution theorists as discussed by the three articles showing my support on one of the theories. Finally, the paper will discuss other 3 additional articles to support the theory I prefer.

Geraghty, A. (2002, spring). Corporate Criminal Liability. American Criminal Law Review, 39(2), 327.
According to Geraghty (2002), corporate criminal liability needs to be examined through the use of corporate compliance program. This is aimed at reducing the companys exposure to corporate legal responsibility since it minimizes crimes in the company as well as liabilities in civil that are brought about by following certain procedures. These procedures requires fund to conduct a research so as to follow the incident of crime while at the same time implicating the criminals.

Poling, J. (2001, spring). Corporate Criminal Liability. American Criminal Law Review, 38(3), 525-55
According to Poling (2001), corporations should adopt a policy of first conducting the investigation on a crime. This is achieved by following criminal liability rules established by the government. However, much criticism has been raised concerning these rules with the allegation that these guidelines are more concerned about the person who has misconducts rather than the corporation. Poling believes that the rules are more concerned with the individuals right and privileges hence exceed limit against the company.

Recine, J. S. (2002, Fall). Examination of the white-collar crime penalty enhancements in the Sarbanes-Oxley act. American Criminal Law Review, 39(4), 1535

According to Recine (2002), the white collar crimes are dealt with in a defined manner. He states that in the white collar job, allegedly criminals are required to step aside first so that investigation can be conducted. These investigations are conducted following the rules and guidelines that are defined by the government in corporate criminal liability rules. In this way, the company or the government is able to check possible reasons for such an act, how it was committed as well as those employees who are involved in the crime. In addition, Recine observed that the investigation involved some of the prosecuting officials who create funding mechanism for law enforcement programs and research facility. This investigation takes a lot of time and resources and is perceived to tarnish the name of the company.

Question 2
Basing on the analysis of corporate criminal liabilities, I support retribution theory. This is due to the fact that the theory supports punishment on the criminal following their misconduct. It sees the chief explanation in an offence that has been committed and the fact that the offence deserves the punishment of the criminal. In reference to the optimal penalty theorists, it is imperative to note that judicial punishment can never be used as means to promote good behavior for the criminal instead it must be bound on him only on the view that he has committed a crime. In this way, the offender is bound to pay for the crime heshe committed. The theory demands that first companies should find out whether the offender is guilty of a crime before any consideration is made so as to determine whether the heshe deserve the punishment. This theory helps in avoiding punishment on those who are not guilty since the extent of guilt must be identified. Therefore, retribution is a necessary and sufficient form of punishment as it does not include legal rules posed by the government. It leaves the company to deal with its own employees so that in case a problem occurs in the company, it will not be publicized. In this regard, companies are able to operate independently without constantly using law enforcers to deal with its crises hence privacy of the company is maintained. In addition, the cost that occurs during the investigation under retribution theory is low as compared to that of optimal penalty theory. This is due to the fact that optimal penalty involve law enforcement which in the end need the company to fund the research.

Question 3
According to Gaborone (2007), law should be used to maximize the happiness of the society therefore law that specify punishment for criminal conduct should be designed to discourage future criminal conduct. In the same way, retribution theorists specify punishment for criminals so that the other employees may be discouraged in committing crimes in the company. Therefore, this form curbing liabilities helps in preventing future crimes from those who observe such a punishment. According to the retribution theory, human beings have free will to make coherent decisions. It set aside crimes done out of insanity claiming that such people should not be punished, but insist of punishment if a person committed a crime in order to upset the society. Therefore, retribution against the criminal is geared to protect the legitimate right of both the society and the criminal. As a result, the rate of crimes is highly controlled in an organization.

Vikramaditya, (2002) observe that the justification of punishment involves the claim that the wicked deserves to suffer on account of their offence. He claims that the rules concerning corporate criminal liabilities that are brought about by the government are likely to dismiss a very serious case or may bring in suffering to those people who are innocent. This is based on the fact that it involves the entire company and not an individual who is responsible for the crime. This justifies retribution theory since it does involve only the wrong doers who consequently face the punishment alone without having to interfere with others people in the company.

Pakenham and Lord, (1961) argues that retribution can be a natural justification in the sense that its quite natural and that a criminal ought to be punished. In addition, this article reveals that punishment is an end in itself. Likewise, retribution could also be said to be the natural justification, in the sense that individuals values it as natural and just and that criminal should be punished while good people ought to be rewarded.