Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines how organizational probation emerged as a legislative tool for controlling corporate crime, highlighting state capacity and business influence.
This study examines the development of organizational probation. That this sanction emerged from the long process of developing organizational sentencing guidelines as a clearly specified, widely available, and often binding sanction represents an unexpected statutory outcome: an interventionist, nonmarket sanction during a time of deregulatory free market policy and ideology. This outcome is explained through a multi-theoretical framework emphasizing the structural capacity of the primary lawmaking agency, the United States Sentencing Commission, the role of middle-level state workers, and the bounded rationality of strategic decisions made by business strategists and lobbyists.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William S. Lofquist (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: