Skip Navigation


British Journal of Criminology Advance Access originally published online on April 11, 2006
British Journal of Criminology 2006 46(5):893-916; doi:10.1093/bjc/azl004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
46/5/893    most recent
azl004v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Almond, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The British Journal of Criminology 46:893-916 (2006)
© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

An Inspector’s-Eye View

The Prospective Enforcement of Work-Related Fatality Cases

Paul Almond*

* Dr Paul Almond, School of Law, University of Reading, Foxhill House, Whiteknights Road, Reading RG6 7AH, UK; p.j.almond{at}reading.ac.uk.

This paper concerns the prospective implementation of the proposed ‘corporate killing’ offence. These proposals suggested that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)—the body currently responsible for regulating work-related health and safety issues—should handle cases in which a ‘corporate killing’ charge is a possibility. Relatively little attention has been paid to this issue of implementation. An empirical investigation was undertaken to assess the compatibility of the HSE’s methodology and enforcement philosophy with the new offence. It was found that inspectors categorize themselves as enforcers of criminal law, see enforcement action as valuable and support the new offence, but disagree over its use. They also broadly supported the HSE taking responsibility for the new offence. This suggests that ‘corporate killing’ may not necessarily be incompatible with the HSE’s modus operandi, and there may be positive reasons for giving the HSE this responsibility.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Criminal JusticeHome page
P. Almond
Understanding the seriousness of corporate crime: Some lessons for the new 'corporate manslaughter' offence
JCriminology and Criminal Justice, May 1, 2009; 9(2): 145 - 164.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J CriminolHome page
G. C. Gray
The Responsibilization Strategy of Health and Safety: Neo-liberalism and the Reconfiguration of Individual Responsibility for Risk
Br. J. Criminol., May 1, 2009; 49(3): 326 - 342.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J CriminolHome page
P. Almond
Public Perceptions of Work-Related Fatality Cases: Reaching the Outer Limits of 'Populist Punitiveness'?
Br. J. Criminol., July 1, 2008; 48(4): 448 - 467.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.