最发达的西方司法管辖区在学术上讨论了公司的刑事责任。广为人知的灾害[ 1 ]，被近在这一主题的作者似乎一致同意推动这种增长在本学科的知名度和有没有需要进一步考虑为什么公司犯罪是一个大问题，但是值得说明当初的动力存在不排除附加刑事责任的企业行为的优点评价。 法人刑事责任的问题远没有新的拟人法应用于企业实体的谬误已经超越了时代，是因在第十八世纪，描述企业缺乏灵魂被诅咒的”或“身体被踢的[ 2主Chancellor Baron Thurlow的话]。在进行讨论会由统一的“灵魂”或有形的“身体”建立的犯罪和惩罚它一直是主要的思想问题，公司目前对刑法的不足。这些被认为是直接发展的法律在第十六世纪初，并显示我们将看到一个明显缺乏成熟的法律人格理论。然而，在我们去思考这些问题，我们要看一下我们是否应该将所有的企业行为。
n most developed western jurisdictions there has been a proliferation in the academic discussion of criminal liability for corporations. The well publicised disasters that are cited by nearly every author on this subject seem to be the unanimously agreed impetus for this increase in popularity of this subject and there is no need to further consider why corporate criminality is such a large issue, however it is worthwhile stating at the outset that the existence of impetus does not preclude any evaluation of the merits of attaching criminal liability to corporate acts. The problems of corporate criminal liability are far from new and the fallacy of anthropomorphic laws applied to corporate entities have transcended the ages and been immortalised by the words of the Lord Chancellor Baron Thurlow in the eighteenth century that described corporations as lacking a ‘soul to be damned’ or a ‘body to be kicked’. As the proceeding discussion will show the lack of unifying ‘soul’ or corporeal ‘body’ by which to establish criminality and punish it has been the main ideological problems which corporations present to the criminal law. These are argued to be direct developments of the law in the early sixteenth century and show as we shall see a distinct lack of a sophisticated theory of legal personality. However, before we go onto consider these questions we have to take a moment and consider whether we ought to criminalise corporate behaviour at all.