c&d - CRIMES OF THE POWERFUL

How does Sutherland define white collar crime?

“a crime committed by a person of high status in the course of their occupation”

How is Sutherland’s definition of white collar crime criticised?

fails to differentiate the two types of white-collar crime.  

Occupational crime = committed by employees for their own personal gain. Often against the organisation, eg, stealing from the company.

Corporate crime = committed by employees for the benefit of their organisation, eg, mis-selling products for more profits.

What do Pearce and Tombs say?

They widen the definition of corporate crime -> any illegal act resulting from deliberate decision-making by a legitimate business, intended to benefit the business.

What does Tombs note?

Corporate and white collar crime does far more harm than ‘ordinary’ crime such as theft as it promotes cynicism. Corporate crime covers a wide range of acts, including the following:

1.      Financial crimes (eg, tax evasion)

2.      Crimes against consumers (eg, false labelling) and employees (Eg, sexual and racial discrimination, and violations of health and safety laws)

4.      Crimes against the environment (Eg, illegal pollution of air, water and land, such as toxic waste dumping)

5 State-corporate crime (refers to the harms committed when government institutions and businesses cooperate to pursue their goals. This is an increasingly important area, because privatised companies now work alongside government in many areas. Eg, private companies contracted to the US military have been accused of involvement in the torture of detainees during the American occupation of Iraq).

the abuse of trust:

High-status professionals occupy positions of trust, however, their position and status give them the opportunity to abuse this trust. For example, accountants and lawyers can be employed by criminal organisations to launder criminal funds into legitimate businesses.

Harold Shipman: abuse of trust:

in 2000, Shipman was convicted of the murder of 15 of his patients, but over the course of the previous 23 years, he is believed to have murdered at least another 200. In the 1970s, Shipman was convicted of obtaining enough morphine to kill 360 people through forgery and deception. Yet for this he received only a warning from the General Medical Council and was allowed to keep practicing as a GP.

The invisibility of corporate crime:

aren’t often seen as ‘real’ crime.

1.      The media give very little coverage to corporate crime, thus reinforcing the stereotype that crime is a w/c phenomenon. They also down-play the crime titles, for example, embezzlement becoming ‘accounting irregularities’ and deaths at work are ‘accidents’ rather than employers’ negligence or cost-cutting.

2.      Lack of political will to tackle corporate crime: politicians view of being ‘tough on crime’ is focused instead on street crime (link to Lemert).

3.      The crimes are often complex and law enforcers are often under-staffed.

4.      De-labelling = corporate crime is consistently filtered out from the process of criminalisation. For example, penalties are often fines rather than jail.

5 Under-reporting = individuals may be unaware that they’ve been victimised. Even when they are aware, they may not regard it as ‘real crime’. They may also feel powerless against a big organisation and so may never report the offence to the authorities.

What do neo-liberals argue against the invisibility of corporate crime?

not invisible - argue for partial visibility. Neoliberal policies such as privatisation and marketisation have led organisations to be increasingly involved in people’s lives. They’re now more exposed to public scrutiny

How do strain theorists explain corporate crime?

Box applies Merton’s concept of innovation to explain corporate crime. If a company can’t achieve its goal of maximising profit by legal means, it may employ illegal ones instead.

What is differential association theory?

a social learning theory that explains how people learn to become criminal or deviant through interactions with others, developed by Sutherland.

How does the differential association theory explain corporate crime?

Sutherland argues that crime is learned through association with others who promote criminal values and behaviour. He argues that is a company’s culture justifies committing crimes to achieve corporate goals, employees will be socialised into this criminality.

What can the concept of differential association be linked to?

1.      Deviant subcultures – company employees face problems of achieving corporate goals and may adopt new deviant means to do so, socialising new members into these.

2.      Techniques of neutralisation – Sykes and Matza argue that individuals can deviate more easily if they can produce justifications to neutralise moral objections to their actions.

For example, white collar criminals may say they were carrying out orders from above, and blame the victim by saying ‘they should’ve read the small print’ etc.

What do Sykes and Matza argue?

individuals can deviate more easily if they can produce justifications to neutralise moral objections to their actions.

For example, white collar criminals may say they were carrying out orders from above, and blame the victim by saying ‘they should’ve read the small print’ etc. (link to cicourel?)

How does the labelling theory explain corporate crime?

Nelken → applied Cicourel’s negotiation of justice to white collar and corporate crime, in an approach called ‘de-labelling’.

Unlike the poor, businesses often have the power to avoid labelling. For example, they can afford lawyers and accountants to help them avoid activities they’re involved in, such as tax evasion. This means that sociologists who rely on OS will inevitably underestimate the extent of these offences.

How does Box combine strain theory and marxism to explain corporate crime?

argues corporations are criminogenic because if they find that legitimate means to profit are blocked, they’ll innovate.

capitalism has created a ‘mystification’ - spread the ideology that corporate crime is less widespread and harmful than w/c crime. Capitalism’s control of the state means that it’s able to avoid making or enforcing laws that conflict with its interests. (SNIDER)

How does Nelken criticise strain theories and marxism’s views of corporate crime?

they over-predict the amount of business crime. He argues that it’s unrealistic to assume that all businesses would offend if it weren’t for the risk of punishment.