Law, Regulation, and Safety Crime: Exploring the Boundaries of Criminalizing Powerful Corporate Actors

Abstract

Th is article interrogates the laws that govern safety crimes, harmful but typically unintentional acts of negligence that occur in the production of goods and services. Acts that injure employees at work are commonly depicted in legal discourses as accidents and penalized through administrative laws, although other negligent acts such as driving offences causing injury or death are treated as potentially criminal events. Through a discourse analysis of legal and regulatory texts and documents, the authors argue that the constitution of workplace safety crime is rooted in complex historical factors that shape state responses to corporate wrongdoing. Th is article documents the roots of this "common sense" view of workplace crime, empirically focusing on Canadian corporate negligence law, and concludes with tentative strategies of resistance and change. RésuméCet article remet en question les lois concernant les crimes de sécurité, qui sont le plus souvent le résultat d'une négligence délétère mais involontaire dans le processus de production de biens et de services. Les actions qui se soldent par des blessures de travailleurs sont souvent décrites juridiquement comme des accidents et pénalisées par voie administrative, alors que d'autres actions négligentes, comme les infractions au volant causant des blessures ou la mort, sont traitées comme des actes potentiellement criminels. Grâce à une analyse des textes et documents législatifs et réglementaires, les auteurs affi rment que la constitution des crimes de sécurité au travail se fonde sur une série de facteurs historiques complexes qui conditionnent la réaction des gouvernements aux fautes commises par les sociétés. L'article documente les origines de cette vision « du bon sens » de la criminalité en milieu de travail en se concentrant de façon empirique sur le droit de la négligence des entreprises au Canada, et conclut sur des pistes de stratégies de résistance et de changement. *The authors are indebted to Frank Pearce and Steve Tombs, whose earlier work comparing corporate crime with motoring offences inspired this article, and to Harry Glasbeek and Jennifer Quaid for their insightful critiques. Th ank you also to Chloe Alexander and Alexander Marar for their research assistance.

Workplace Violence: Examining Interpersonal and Impersonal Violence among Truck Drivers

“…In our view, such debates, while couched in empirical terms, often contain implicit ideological positions (see Almond and Gray ), given that powerful elites in society occupy structurally advantageous positions from which they can influence the ways in which laws are both designed and implemented. For instance, in the area of workplace safety, violations by employers are often viewed as regulatory offenses ( mala prohibita ), a position that is often challenged by researchers who argue that some of these violations should be viewed as crimes ( mala in se ), especially when such violations are repeated by employers in a recidivist manner (see Snider ; Almond , ; Tombs and Whyte , ; Bittle and Snider ).…”

Deconstructing Decriminalization: A Genealogy of the Provincial Offences Administration, the Modern Fine, and Penalization in Ontario

“…In Canada, studies of regulatory systems of punishment and social control have mainly focused on the implementation of the SSA (Chesnay et al 2013;O'Grady et al 2013) and the regulation of corporate bodies (Bittle & Snider 2015;Snider 1993;Glasbeek 2002). Studies of Canada's regulatory systems more generally (Libman 2011(Libman , 2012a(Libman , 2012bRankin 2014;Verhulst 2008), mainly examinations of the British Columbia and Ontario model, see their purpose and characteristics in similar terms.…”

“…In doing so, Velloso (2013a) seeks to better understand and provide greater nuanced into the "penal complex" 175 these areas within the field of criminology, including its critical strain, have yet to be adequately theorized or researched. This case is further made in relation to the POA, touching many of the field just mentioned (i.e., decriminalization, administrative systems, and fines), there have been little studies undertaken beyond the SSA (see Chesney et al 2013), corporate crime (see Bittle & Snider 2015), and sentencing principle (see Libman 2011Libman , 2012aLibman , 2012b in understanding the creation and application of the POA's model of punishment and social control. Put simply, whether looking at a "petty offence system" (Natapoff 2015b: 265) or more specifically "monetary sanctions" (Harris et al 2018), there is a need for research to examine, illuminate, and in some cases, deconstruct our conceptions around these systems and how they are operating.…”

“…On that note, this thesis was also aware that there are other dynamics shaping the POA beyond the records and the discourses contained within them, this includes law enforcement, the courts, and the other 'street-level bureaucrats' (see Harris 2016: 124-133) on the frontlines of the judicial system. Taking my own experiences as a POA clerk into account, as well as the various other Canadian research done on particular areas of this system, including the SSA (Chesnay et al 2013;Hermer & Mosher 2002;O'Grady et al 2013), regulation of corporations (Glasbeek 2002;Snider 1993;Snider and Bittle 2015), and the role of Business Improvement Districts in urban governance (Lippert 2012;Lippert & Sleiman 2012), this thesis adds to this body of literature, providing a macro-look at the evolution (i.e., genealogy) of the POA as it relates to minor offences.…”

“…Having said that, the sketch and public issue that has arisen in the POA, with Mr. Jaques as one of its many branches, has only started to be fully explained and/or understood. An issue caused in part due to neglect of this field going back decades (i.e., fines, but also decriminalized systems) (see Bottoms 1983;Velloso 2013a;Young 1987), and research focusing on specific aspects of these spaces, whether corporate crime (e.g., Bittle & Snider 2015;Glasbeek 2002;Snider 1993), homelessness (e.g., Chesnay, et al 2013;O'Grady, Gaetz, & Buccieri 2013;Valverde 2012a), or monetary fines in the CJS (e.g., Hampson 2016;Harris 2016;Harris, Evans, & Beckett 2010, this thesis takes up this endeavour of examining the 'public issue' of the POA, while also situating and connecting its findings to these other important studies.…”