Environmental crime prosecutions in Ireland, 2004–2014

Abstract

Despite increased interest in environmental crime and green criminology, few studies address the use of criminal penalties in response to environmental crimes. A handful of published examples employ data from the United States or the Flanders court system, and little is known about how other nations punish environmental violations. Addressing this issue, the current study examined the use of criminal environmental penalties in Ireland from 2004 to 2014. Few criminal environmental cases (N = 147) and few environmental offenders (N = 154) were represented in these data over time. Consistent with the expectations of green/environmental crime researchers, mean penalties for environmental violations, which in Ireland only include fines and investigative cost recovery penalties, were rather small. Unlike in the US or Flanders, the majority of offenders were corporate offenders as opposed to individuals. Contextual factors related to Ireland's economy, history and use of criminal sanctions should be used to interpret these factors, and prevent generalising from these data.

Opening a Path towards Sustainable Corporate Behaviour: Public Participation in Criminal Environmental Proceedings

“…For example, Lynch et al pointed out to the low number of criminal penalties for environmental crimes in Ireland-for the examined period of 11 years, it can be concluded that there were about 14 environmental punishments per year, which is disproportionate to other offences. At the same time, the majority of offenders in question were corporations [16].…”

“…It should be established at an early stage that despite the large number of environmental violations, there is only a low number of criminal environmental cases [5,16]. What is perhaps even more alarming, though, is that when there is an environmental criminal procedure, the public-assuming the position of an injured party or a victim of an environmental harm with implications for a larger part of the society-seems to be virtually deprived of the possibility to participate in it [17].…”

Prevention and Suppression of Environmental Crimes in the Light of the Actions of Non-Governmental Organizations in the Iranian Legal System

“…In addition to prevention, it is very important to take a reactive approach to criminalize acts of environmental degradation and pollution; By identifying and expanding the competence of those in charge, from public and governmental to private and non-governmental, the protection of privacy will become a better and easier process. Therefore, the interaction of non-governmental organizations with the government and the competence of these organizations in environmental criminal cases has an important role in protecting the environment in the control and enforcement phase [11][12][13][14][15][16][17].…”

“…Sometimes the actions of these organizations are such that they can be considered in the formation of minimum criteria, for example, companies producing products and food products or even health and pharmaceuticals and clothing and services to maintain their credibility in the market and Also, their convenience from the buyer point to the logo of the licensing of these institutions as a proof of the high quality of their products on their goods. Despite the many efforts of non-governmental organizations in Iran, these organizations have not yet been able to find their true place properly and act in an integrated manner in mobilizing public opinion to protect the environment and prevent environmental crimes [15,16].…”

The Global Waste Trafficking and Its Correlates

“…White, 2011). This results in a general sense of impunity (Pereira, 2015), insofar as both the perception of the risk of being caught and the probability of a criminal prosecution are extremely low for environmental crimes (Lynch et al,2016, 2019; Morganti et al, 2020; Sahramäki et al, 2017). In addition, the financial losses stemming from potential punishment are often negligible for waste traffickers (Bisschop, 2012).…”