the primary responsibility for corporate crime control in the United States resides in regulatory agencies. These agencies are involved in all aspects of administrative justice from law making and administration to adjudication and sentencing. In examining the goals, strategies, and accomplishments of regulatory justice, I address similar issues and concerns raised in earlier chapters, such as whether legal processing of corporate criminals through administrative law and its remedies (e.g., investigation, processing, and sanctioning) promotes deterrence. In this vein, it is important to note that the goal of regulation is not punishment per se, but rather to produce business behavior that adheres to rules or standards. Although this may appear to be a fine distinction, it is not an inconsequential one from a deterrence perspective that assumes law-abiding behavior to stem from the fear of punishment. At issue, then, is whether nonpunitive compliance systems are capable of yielding deterrent effects.

As part of this overall review of regulatory justice, I highlight particular challenges to deterrence that coincide with three distinct periods of regulatory activity in the United States; assess current deterrence arguments, both theoretical and empirical; compare assumptions embedded in punitive (deterrence) versus compliance (persuasion) strategies; and consider whether these approaches to corporate crime control are oppositional or complimentary in nature.

Business regulation in the united states

Regulation is defined as “state-imposed limitation on the discretion that may be exercised by individuals or organizations, which is supported by the threat of sanction.