Social class and crime
Most studies in sociology suggest that the most serious and frequent offenders are young working class males. However, there may be a bias in the statistics that results in the idea that ‘white collar crime’ is underestimated... * WHITE COLLAR CRIME - middle class members of the business world - invisible and complex. * BLUE COLLAR CRIME - working class members in society - often visible and more likely to be punished.
Sutherland (1949) first used the term ‘white collar crime’. He challenged the assumption that crime is mostly a working class phenomenon. However, his own definition is not helpful. The problem with it is that he does not distinguish crimes committed for an organisation. Writers have therefore distinguished between crimes: * CORPORATE CRIME - carried out on behalf of the organisation (e.g. tax evasion). * OCCUPATIONAL CRIME - benefits the individual at the expense of the organisation (e.g. embezzling money).
White collar crimes are more technical, complex and discrete and often receive more lenient punishments than blue collar crimes. For white collar crimes, there is a fine line between what is acceptable and what is not. It is often about what is morally wrong rather than legally wrong.
Occupational/Corporate crime:
The study of these crimes developed from the work of Sutherland in the 1940s. He used the term white collar crime to refer to crime committed by people who worked in offices. His work overlaps with the interests of Marxists who were interested in the crimes of the powerful. They share the concern that these types of crimes have been largely ignored, whereas much work has centred on working class crimes.
The problem in the debate about what is a occupational/corporate crime is some are not strictly illegal - for example low safety standards at work may meet the minimum legal criteria. As Nelken (2002) points out, the debate about corporate crime is as much about what is morally wrong than what is legally wrong.
Pearce and Tombs (1998) argue that corporate crime ought to extend to the manufacture of cigarettes and alcohol - since both are linked to illness and death. Others point out that transnational companies are committing crimes, even if this isn’t a crime in the country it takes place in (for example, low pay in countries abroad, harsh working conditions etc).
However, this debate goes beyond the limits of the law and looks at actions that have harmful consequences.
Ditton (1977) and Mars (1982) have both studied theft by employees in a wide range of occupations and found that minor theft was regarded as a legitimate part of the job. Management often turned a blind eye to ‘fiddles’, accepting them as a perk.
Functionalists suggest that the difference between professionals (e.g. doctors) and most other workers is how much trust can be placed in them (e.g. from patients).
According to Nelken (2002), there is a considerable amount of evidence pointing to fraudulent claims from doctors/dentists against insurance companies in the USA.
Left realists argue that the enormous costs of conventional crime to society damages the quality of people’s lives. However, some argue that corporate crimes cost much more.
Corporate crime: an invisible issue:
Corporate crime is clearly a major problem for society and costs economies more than conventional blue collar crimes. What is interesting is how little attention is paid to it and how sanctions against those engaged in this form of crime are relatively minor.
There are several reasons why it may be invisible: * Differences in power - Marxists like Pearce (1976) argue that laws governing corporate crime reflect the inequalities in power of a capitalist society. The owners of the corporations are members of the ruling class and they ensure that the law/its enforcement reflect their interests. * Media representations of crime - Tombs and Whyte (2003) point out that corporate crimes are rarely considered newsworthy, partly because the crimes are too complex to summarise in an article or too dull or have no clear victims. When it is reported, it is more a ‘scandal’ than a crime. * Policing of corporate crime - Braithwaite (2000) argues that business and finance tend to be controlled through ‘regulation’ rather than policing. Agencies are developed by government to ‘oversee’ the activities of companies. However, these agencies rarely report violations of procedure - they usually result in a fine. * Lack of research - Tombs (2007) pointed out that each year, the British Government spends much effort in finding out how many crimes are committed through the British Crime Survey, yet nothing similar is attempted to find out the extent of corporate crime. Sociologists have little access to large corporations and little expertise in business methods to look themselves.
State crime:
Some researchers identify a third type of white collar crime - state crime. This involves crimes committed by the state or agencies of the state, on behalf of the state.
Crimes against employees:
These include failing to meet health and safety regulations which can lead to the injury or death of employees.
Environmental offences:
These include polluting the environment with toxic waste, when fined - the firms usually pay a low fine (averaging £4300 in 1998).
Financial frauds:
These include false accounting, insurance frauds and the making of false claims by sellers about the benefits of pension schemes and saving plans. Fraud can involve vast sums of money and the consequences can be extremely serious.
Views of white collar crime:
Compared to more visible/obvious types of crime such as burglary, white collar crime is often treated differently by the public, courts, police etc. According to Hughes and Langan (2001), this is due to 4 main factors: * Low visibility - street crimes and their consequences are highly visible, whereas white collar crimes are largely hidden from the public gaze. When they are detected, it is hard to pinpoint blame. * Complexity - large scale frauds are highly complex operations. They are hard to unravel and hard to allocate blame. They involve different companies, various bank accounts, a multitude of transactions and variety of individuals who are aware of what’s going on. It takes teams of experts years to uncover the truth. * Diffusion of responsibility - responsibility for corporate crime is often diffused - widely spread. It is difficult to allocate blame to particular individuals. * Diffusion of victimisation - many white collar crimes are described as ‘crimes without victims’. In many cases, there is no obvious victim (which would be obvious in a murder or robbery). However, there are victims - they’re just more spread out (environmental pollution affects many people). We all have to pay for white collar crime - higher prices, higher insurance premiums and taxes etc.
Regulating corporate crime:
Compared to other forms of crime, corporate crime has a lower rate of detection and prosecution and more lenient punishments. Many corporate crimes are dealt with by regulating bodies rather than the criminal justice system (e.g. trading standards). They are more likely to give ‘official warnings’ than to pursue prosecutions. In the case of professionals, like doctors and lawyers, ‘misconduct’ is usually dealt with by professional associations like The British Medical Association - only the most serious cases result in prosecution.
When white collar offenders are prosecuted and found guilty of a criminal offence, their punishment tends to be lenient. Compared to ordinary criminals, they are more likely to be punished with community service, a fine or a short sentence.
Explaining white collar crime:
White collar crime covers a vast array of offences from petty occupational crime (e.g. stealing pens from work) to corporate crime (large scale frauds). It is difficult to find an explanation for this variety of offences. * Merton’s strain theory has been developed in an attempt to explain white collar crime (all members of society face the same success goals - there is pressure on all social classes to succeed). When people in white collar occupations find the routes to pay rises and promotions blocked, they sometimes innovate - just like members of the working class. In other words, they turn to illegal means to become successful and attain monetary goals. They experience the same strain to anomie - to normlessness. This weakens the mechanisms of social control - the norms which would otherwise restrain criminal behaviour. * Relative deprivation can be used to explain why well off, middle class people experience a strain to anomie. They may feel deprived, in comparison to others who are considerably better off than themselves. So, given the pressure to succeed, they experience a strain to anomie.
In much the same way, corporations may find that legal ways of maintaining or increasing their profits are ineffective. As a result, there is a strain to anomie and pressure to turn to illegal means. The desired result may be obtained by fraud or by ignoring health and safety and environmental regulations. * Other sociologists have argued that many corporations have a subculture which emphasises the pursuit of wealth and profit. This so called enterprise culture places a high value on risk taking and monetary success. For some, it is a short step to ‘success at all costs’, even if this means fraud, bribery or corruption.
Underestimation of corporate/white collar crime: * It is hard to detect - many white collar crimes are crimes without clear victims. * In cases of bribery/corruption, both parties involved may see themselves as gaining from the arrangement. Both face prosecution if caught, so neither is likely to report the offence. * A lot of the time, members of the public lack expertise to realise they are being misled. So detection/prosecution is often left to a government agency which rarely has the finances to bring more than a few cases to court. * When an offence occurs, it is often hard to find a person who is responsible for it. * Often white collar crimes are dealt with by various commissions so, official warnings rather than prosecutions are frequently the rule. In cases of professionals, their own firms usually deal with misconduct and prosecutions are rare.
So, official statistics underestimate the extent of white collar crime. They portray crime as predominantly working class.
Differential association and subcultural theory:
Sutherland (1940) claims that the culture of the organisation might well justify committing illegal acts to reach goals. For example, Geis (1967) examined the evidence given to congressional hearings into illegal price-fixing agreements of companies in the USA. He found that people taking posts in organisations tended to find price fixing was a regular practice involved in part of their training. Also, Aubert (1952) found that white collar criminals have an ‘elaborate and widely accepted ideological rationalisation for their offences’. In fact, criminal practices were quite normal.
Emotion based approaches:
More recently, the interest in emotions and the meaning of masculinity has spilled over into explaining occupational and organised crime. According to Portnoy (2003), the reason so powerful, rich people commit crime is for the thrills and excitement. The excitement is as valued as the financial benefits.
Similarly, Punch (1996) argues that high finance is a world of ‘power struggles, ideological debate, intense political rivalry, manipulation of information buffeted by moral ambiguity’. For these writers, crimes by companies and by individuals are explicable by thrill-seeking. Increasingly, this also links to ideas of masculinity, as the majority of people in senior positions are male, with high-risk ‘macho’ attitudes regarded positively by the culture of big business.
Labelling theory:
Mars (1982) argues that the labelling theory helps us to understand occupational crime and how employers respond to it. In his study of the catering industry, he found that there is a blurred line between entrepreneurality and flair on one hand and sharp practice and fraud on the other.
Nelken (2002) looked at work from a company who investigates NHS professionals accused of defrauding the NHS by over claiming. He found that everything was done to avoid the impression that criminal behaviour was an issue. Crime committed by professionals is rarely defined as crime.
Labelling theory is useful in helping to explain corporate crime in a different way. It can label blue collar crime negatively and white collar crime not so much.
Anomie:
The anomie theory states that every society has culturally approved goals as well as the goals to achieve them. If people cannot achieve the goals legitimately, they use illegitimate ways.
Box (1983) argues that if an organisation is unable to achieve its goals using socially approved means, it may turn to illegitimate ways.
Braithwaite (1984) argues that corporate crime could be seen as ‘an illegitimate means of achieving any one of a wider range of organisational and personal goals when legitimate means are blocked’.
Punch (1996) suggests in the high-pressure world of business, individuals who perceive themselves as failing may turn to crime to resolve it.
Nelken (2002) is sceptical about the worth of anomie theory because it fails to explain why some don’t choose illegitimate means and some do.
Marxist explanations:
Critical criminologists argue that despite the fact that the powerful are able to use their dominance of society to avoid having the majority of their activities defined as illegal, they still break the law if needed.
Box (1983) points out the success the powerful have had in promoting the idea that corporate crime is less serious and less harmful than street crimes. Box describes this as a deliberate ‘mystification’.
Pearce (1976) was interested in why there were so few prosecutions against corporations and senior business people. He concluded that they were so rare because it would undermine the idea that most crime is carried out by the working class.
Slapper and Tombs (1999) claim that their research into the behaviour of large transnational companies in developing countries demonstrates the Marxist case that illegal and immoral practices are normal under capitalism.
Criticisms of Marxism: * Carrabine et al (2004) criticised the Marxists’ position on corporate crime, pointing out that the provision of poor working conditions, pollution of the environment and low pay are not restricted to capitalist societies - they happen in communist societies too. * Nelken (2002) points out that there are numerous laws controlling business in capitalist societies, which the ruling class cannot always control.