Health and safety regulation in Britain: Beyond fines and towards alternative punishments

这个博士学位的总体目标是使用访谈和焦点小组来收集证据，以确定目前的制裁是否足以控制安全犯罪-即雇主的行为或疏忽违反健康和安全法，或有可能因与工作有关的活动而导致死亡或受伤-以及像公平罚款或社区判决令这样的替代惩罚是否更适合于惩罚企业罪犯。之所以选择使用定性方法，是因为与这一领域已经有限的研究不同，还没有将文献基础与政策专家和公众舆论联系起来的初步研究。第一年将包括准备文献综述，理论章节，方法章节和审查小组文件。第二年将包括审查小组，伦理审查过程，数据收集和数据分析阶段。最后，第三年将编写和讨论结果，以及对前几章的任何修改。在第二年，我的目标是进行25-30个专业人士的采访：皇家检察署，健康和安全执行，司法部，职业安全和健康顾问登记处，工作和养老金部，内政部，警察局，法院法官，国家犯罪机构，危害（最著名的工会健康和安全杂志）、刑事司法联盟、全国反种族歧视组织：一个社会正义慈善机构，和两个学者有关的主题（史蒂夫坟墓，有点教父的安全犯罪，已经同意接受采访）。这些面试将在可能的情况下亲自进行，持续45分钟，尽管电话面试也足够了。第二，我计划进行大约6个焦点小组，每组6-8名公众。我将使用有目的的抽样来联系来自社区中心或潜在感兴趣的部门（如建筑公司）的个人。进行焦点小组的理由是，健康和安全执行局的起诉指南的一部分依赖于“公共利益测试”，见（HSE 2016）。从本质上讲，如果公众有强烈的意愿惩罚犯罪者（包括使用何种惩罚），这一证据将有助于对哪些惩罚被认为是最成功的进行全面分析。访谈和焦点小组都将被记录下来，这样我就可以使用主题分析来转录数据，我在布里斯托大学攻读政策研究硕士学位期间曾被教导如何进行定性研究和分析。这一建议遵循Davis（2004）的主要Meta审查得出的结论，即执法是有效安全保护的必要条件。它也遵循了我的硕士论文项目的结论，这是一个关于安全犯罪监管和惩罚的范围审查，得出的结论是，穿透公司面纱的制裁（即个人惩罚，如社区判决令）有更大的机会惩罚和威慑公司罪犯。这一建议与许多关于如何惩罚公司违法者的文献（见Braithwaite 2000; Gobert和Punch 2003; Tombs和Whyte 2007）一致，尽管它是在这一领域进行初步分析的极少数研究之一。换句话说，有一个关于这个话题的主要证据缺乏，从而使这个博士在这一领域的一个新的贡献。2000.管制，犯罪，自由。阿尔德肖特：阿什盖特。戈伯特，J。& M. PUNCH，2003.重新思考公司犯罪。Edinburgh：LexNexis Butterworths.Health AND Safety EXEUCTIVE. 2016.公益舞台[在线]。可从：http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/approving-public.htm [2017年10月1日访问]。TOMBS，S.，& D.怀特，2007年。安全犯罪。出版社：Willan Publishing

The overall objective of this PhD is to use interviews and focus groups to gather evidence regarding whether current sanctions are sufficient for the control of safety crime - that being employer acts or omissions which violate health and safety law that either do, or have the potential to cause death or injury as a result of work-related activities - and whether alternative punishments like equity fines or community sentence orders are better adapted to punishing corporate offenders. This use of qualitative methods is chosen because unlike the already limited amount of research in this area, there have been no primary studies connecting the literature base to policy experts and public opinion. Year one will consist of preparing the literature review, theoretical chapter, methodology chapter, and the review panel documentation. Year two will then consist of the review panel, ethical review process, and data collection and data analysis stages. Lastly, year three will be the write up and discussion of the results, alongside any amendments to previous chapters. In year two I will be aiming to conduct 25-30 interviews of professionals from the: Crown Prosecution Service, Health and Safety Executive, Ministry of Justice, Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register, Department for Work and Pensions, Home Office, Police Service, Court Judges, National Crime Agency, Hazards (the most prominent trade union health and safety magazine), Criminal Justice Alliance, NACRO: A Social justice charity, and two academics related to the subject (Steve Tombs, somewhat the godfather of safety crime, has already agreed to an interview). These interviews will be conducted in person if possible and last 45 minutes, although phone based interviews will also suffice. Second, I plan to conduct roughly 6 focus groups of 6-8 individuals of the public. I will use purposive sampling to contact individuals from community centres or potentially interested sectors such as construction companies. The rationale for conducting focus groups is that part of the Health and Safety Executive's prosecution guidelines rely upon a 'public interest test', see (HSE 2016). In essence, if there is a strong public will to punish offenders (including which punishments to use), this evidence will be useful in the overall analysis bearing on which punishments are deemed most successful. Both interviews and focus groups will be recorded so that I can transcribe the data using thematic analysis, in which I have been taught how to conduct qualitative research and analysis during my MSc Policy Research degree at the University of Bristol.This proposal follows the conclusions made by Davis' (2004) major meta review, in that law enforcement is a required condition of effective safety protection. It also follows the conclusions of my master's dissertation project, which was a scoping review on safety crime regulation and punishment, concluding that sanctions which pierce the corporate veil (i.e. individual punishments like community sentence orders) have a greater chance of punishing and deterring corporate offenders. This proposal concurs with much of the literature regarding how corporate offenders should be punished (see Braithwaite 2000; Gobert and Punch 2003; Tombs and Whyte 2007), although it differs by being one of the very few studies to conduct primary analysis within this area. In other words, there is a lack of primary evidence regarding this topic, thus making this PhD a novel contribution in this area.ReferencesBRAITHWAITE, J., 2000. Regulation, Crime, Freedom. Aldershot: Ashgate.GOBERT, J., & M. PUNCH, 2003. Rethinking Corporate Crime. Edinburgh: LexNexis Butterworths.HEALTH AND SAFETY EXEUCTIVE. 2016. Public interest stage [online]. Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/approving-public.htm [Accessed 1 October 2017].TOMBS, S., & D. WHYTE, 2007. Safety Crime. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.