Pengertian dan Konsep Pidana Koorporasi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, criminal law only recognizes humans as subjects of criminal law or perpetrators of criminal acts. However, considering that many companies carry out various business activities that harm society in ways that violate the law, society and criminal law experts have begun to question: should companies whose business activities are very detrimental to society not have to bear the burden of criminal responsibility? Are only their managers able and must be punished? This question has led to the acceptance of the concept of corporate criminal responsibility. Criminal acts for which criminal responsibility can be imposed on corporations are called corporate crimes. The concept of corporate criminalization is a concept of criminal law that has not been accepted by criminal law for long. Although this concept first appeared in England in the 19th century, in other countries this concept was only accepted in the 20th century. For example, France only recognized the concept of corporations as perpetrators of criminal acts in 1994, Luxembourg and Spain in 2010, and Italy in 2011. The increasing number of criminal cases against corporations in the US and Canada also only occurred in the 21st century. The US and Europe in recent times have been faced with various criminal cases involving corporations, such as environmental pollution, unfair business competition, food and drug products that are harmful to health, fraud involving company accounting records, worker accidents, bribery, and financial crimes. The role of corporations is very large in human life on this earth. With human dependence on corporations that is very large, it is possible for corporations to do whatever they want, the most important thing for them is to get big profits. So it is not surprising if corporations violate the applicable regulations. In relation to this, can corporations be held accountable for these violations under Indonesian criminal law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".