{"id":424,"date":"2019-12-02T12:26:45","date_gmt":"2019-12-02T17:26:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/?page_id=424"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:11:52","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:11:52","slug":"the-real-danger-of-the-responsibility-surplus","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/in-print-2\/volume-17-special-issue-2019\/the-real-danger-of-the-responsibility-surplus\/","title":{"rendered":"The Real Danger of the Responsibility Surplus"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine permits the criminal punishment of an executive who neither participated in nor was aware of a criminal offense committed by a subordinate in limited circumstances. Some theorists argue for expanding the scope of the doctrine as a means of discouraging corporate wrongdoing. In this article I argue that this is mistaken as a matter of fact. Extending such vicarious criminal liability would not only fail to reduce corporate crime, it would be likely to both increase it and retard efforts to create non-criminogenic corporate cultures.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/23\/2019\/12\/17-S-Hasnas.pdf\">Keep Reading The Real Danger of the Responsibility Surplus<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine permits the criminal punishment of an executive who neither participated in nor was aware of a criminal offense committed by a subordinate in limited circumstances. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":129,"featured_media":0,"parent":391,"menu_order":8,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-424","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/424","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/129"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=424"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/424\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":425,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/424\/revisions\/425"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/391"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}