Are Policies Keyed to New Sentencing Guidelines?

By Dow, Clifford E.; Muehl, Robert G. | Security Management, November 1992 | Go to article overview

Are Policies Keyed to New Sentencing Guidelines?


Dow, Clifford E., Muehl, Robert G., Security Management


ON NOVEMBER 1, 1991, new federal sentencing guidelines developed by the US Sentencing Commission became effective. These guidelines include severe mandatory penalties to companies that could have prevented criminal losses by taking adequate security measures. One year later, our informal survey of 15 major companies found only one that was aware of the standards or the new emphasis on security and accountability.

While the trend in federal and state legislation toward management accountability for criminal and tortious activity is increasing, the new focus on security should be viewed as a plus by security professionals.

Security managers today face an uphill battle when they go to the company's decision makers and ask for additional security funding. Now, however, security professionals can point not only to the need to protect assets directly but also to the need to protect companies from the potential penalties under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizational Defendants.

In the past, when the activities of business were deemed to be harmful to the public, the judicial system was limited to enforcement action only against the responsible party. Under the new rules, the company itself, as opposed to only the employees directly responsible for an offense, may be indicted in the event a crime is committed. The presence of an effective security program is cited under the guidelines as a possible method of setting a lower sentence for the organization.

The impact of the federal sentencing guidelines is significant. The requirements revolve around prevention, deterrence, and reporting of criminal behavior within organizations. Most organizations with proprietary security or loss prevention departments will be able to provide many of the required services.

The guidelines govern the sentences imposed by the US district judges on corporations, partnerships, unions, and other organizations for violations of federal law and are effective for sentences imposed for unlawful acts occurring on or after November 1, 1991.

Prior to the adoption of these criteria, federal judges had wide discretion in imposing fines and in pronouncing other sentences. Although judges had long been empowered to impose heavy fines, few crimes carried mandatory monetary sanctions and even fewer posed the threat of judicial intervention into the business affairs of the company.

The push for more uniform sentencing has been driven by several factors, chief of which is a concern over an epidemic of white-collar crime. Recently, Charlie Parsons, special agent in charge of the Los Angeles Office of the FBI, told the Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the American Society for Industrial Security that last year the amount of money taken in all of the bank robberies in the United States was $73 million. During the same period, one fraud case alone was estimated to have resulted in a loss of $2.6 billion.

Government has placed much of the responsibility for controlling fraud squarely on the shoulders of American business. The federal sentencing guidelines are designed to provide "just punishment, adequate deterrence, and incentives for organizations to maintain internal mechanisms for preventing, detecting, and reporting criminal conduct" in all aspects of their activity.

The core sentencing principle followed by the sentencing commission is that the penalty should be based on "the seriousness of the offense and the culpability of the organization." The seriousness of an offense is measured in terms of its economic consequences--the monetary gain or loss resulting from wrongful conduct.

Culpability is determined by reviewing the steps taken by the organization prior to the offense to prevent and detect criminal conduct. This is where security measures become a key defense.

The level and extent of involvement in, or tolerance of, the offense by certain personnel and the organization's actions after the offense has been committed are also considered in determining culpability.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Are Policies Keyed to New Sentencing Guidelines?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.