Nancy Frank

Gender bias and pretrial release: More pieces of the puzzle

Pretrial release has been cited as a decision point in the criminal justice system at which gender bias may result in different outcomes for female defendants compared to males. This study analyzed data from a weighted sample of nearly 2000 felony cases from Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Bivariate analysis indicated that females were more likely than males to be granted lenient pretrial release terms, to receive lower bail amounts when cash bail was set, to spend shorter periods of time in jail before trial, and to gain release pending trial. If released, women were more likely to appear in court as scheduled. Multivariate logit analysis, however, showed that gender was a significant factor for the court only in choosing between noncash and cash terms of release. Finally, crime-type-specific logit analysis suggested that neither the simple chivalry hypothesis nor the sex-role stereotype hypothesis were supported by these data.

Policing corporate crime: A typology of enforcement styles

In the past few years, journalists, politicians, and business spokes-persons have all leveled criticisms against regulatory enforcement agencies—some charging that agencies are too lenient to be effective, others that strict enforcement has created useless hardships for industry. Most scholarly research on regulatory enforcement has sought to find the reasons why an agency (or inspectors) adopt either a conciliatory or a stringent approach to enforcement. A different facet of this issue is to ask how an enforcement strategy is implemented through the organizational structure and culture of the agency. This paper develops a typology that focuses on the organizational processes through which an enforcement strategy is implemented.

Maiming and Killing: Occupational Health Crimes

While the problems of occupational health have grown in recent decades, public policy for dealing with these risks remains limited in comparison to policy on occupational injuries. Occupational health hazards pose special problems in terms of setting standards and compensating workers. This article explores the issues of uncertainty, acceptable risk, and enforcement. Because of technical, economic, and political dilemmas, workers bear the burdens of occupational disease. Since society benefits by permitting workers to be exposed to occupational health hazards, it has a responsibility to compensate those who become ill and to provide an integrated system of legal controls to protect workers.

From Criminal to Civil Penalities in the History of Health and Safety Laws

When a corporation or corporate executive is caught polluting the water, selling adulterated food, or creating hazardous working conditions, the penalty is typically civil; criminal penalities are rarely imposed for these kinds of acts. Criminologists have assumed that this is because the corporate sector has used its political influence to insulate corporations and executives from criminal stigma and imprisonment. This conflict model explanation has never been substantiated. Nor can it be substantiated that the corporate sector has been primarily responsible for the adoption of civil penalties for the transgressions of corporations and executives. After examining the development of penalties in health and safety law, I find that civil penalties have been adopted because many people believed that criminal penalties were inappropriate under the circumstances. The problem of strict liability was raised consistently as a reason for adopting civil rather than criminal penalties.

Using Judgment: Food Inspectors’ Perceptions of the Seriousness of Violations

Abstract Based on interviews with state food inspectors, this article examines the influence on inspectors’ designation and treatment of violations as serious. Inspectors’ definitions of seriousness, which are similar to the publics definition of serious, depend on the degree of harm caused by the violation, the certainty of risk of harm, and the culpability of the violator. Definitions of seriousness are also influenced by the degree of “judgment” needed to determine if a violation exists and by the inspectors’ superiors’ practices in responding to violations. Because inspectors perceive superiors as responding to violations on political and public relations criteria, rather than solely in relation to the seriousness of the violation, inspectors are often forced to attend to conflicting definitions of seriousness.

Unintended murder and corporate risk-taking: Defining the concept of justifiability

The Film Recovery Systems and Ford Pinto cases are examples of the use of conventional homicide laws to prosecute harms arising out of business activities. When workers, consumers, or members of the public die due to the reckless conduct of corporations or corporate executives, one legal option available in many states is to charge the reckless parties with unintended murder. This article reviews the variety of definitions of unintended murder and applies these to examples involving corporate defendants. This analysis highlights a special issue in relation to corporate defendants–the role of risk assessment efforts in establishing culpability. Definitions of unintended murder, in relation to corporate defendants, must attend to both the mens rea of corporate decision-makers and the justifiability of risks that result in death.