Theories of White-Collar Crime - Assignment Example

Criminological Theory Corporate or ‘white-collar’ crime describes a varied number of illegal nonviolentoffences perpetrated within business settings for monetary advantage. These crimes can involve circumstances in which, for example, a company or its representatives deliberately contaminates the environment, sells unsafe products, or uses substandard construction materials. Other common white-collar crimes include computer/internet, telephone, insurance and many types of financial fraud. Also included is the headline capturing insider trading scams, tax evasion and the disregarding of environmental regulations. White collar thievery involves theft of the competition’s trade secrets, laundering money, taking kickbacks or bribes, embezzlement of corporate funds and counterfeiting. Although these types of crimes cause no direct bodily harm, many people are severely hurt financially as well as physically because of unsafe and illegal working conditions and environmental pollutants. While many theories attempt to explain the causations for crime in general, this discussion centers on corporate criminals and looks at those which fit this type of criminal behaviour such as the strain, rational choice, opportunity, self choice and the social control theory. It also examines four popularly accepted theories that do not. According to Robert Agnew’s research which expanded the general strain theory, employees may seek retribution when they are treated poorly, a possible motive for corporate crime. An employee, believing that they have not been properly compensated for their efforts, for example, may devise a scheme to ‘pay themselves back’ for what they believe the company rightfully owes them. Another example could involve an employee who has repeatedly been denied promotion in favour of what they deem to be inferior candidates (Agnew, 1985, p. 152). According to Agnew, people strive for three main goals through their employment. The first, not surprisingly, is monetary gain. Money, or the lack of, causes strain which leads to delinquent behaviour in otherwise law abiding citizens. The second is a need for respect and a feeling of status, a factor especially present in males. Personality characteristics which are often associated with masculine traits are frequently exhibited through delinquent behaviour. If an individual cannot achieve this perceived status legitimately, they may resort to criminal activities. The third goal is autonomy which refers to individual empowerment, a valued asset within any society. Although strain generated by a perceived lack of autonomy has been shown to mainly affect the lower classes and adolescents, because this is a perception of position in a society or corporation, it is also linked to white collar crime as well. Agnew suggests that “the need for autonomy can result in delinquency and crime, as the individual tried to assert autonomy, achieve autonomy, and relieve frustration against those who have denied the individual autonomy” (Agnew, 1994, pp. 425-426). The theory of Rational Choice has its foundation in the Drift Theory and the Systematic Crime Theory. The Drift Theory proposes that individuals use the process of ‘neutralisation’ in that they drift between rational and antisocial behaviours. The Systematic Crime Theory, a facet of the Social Disorganisation Theory puts forward the premise that government controls are undermined by the breakdown of families and/or the pressures from group associations which disassociates an individual from the community. These factors lead to ‘systematic’ patterned, organised and repetitive criminal activities. Given this situation, the individual, as proposed by this line of thought, will always act on what they alone will gain from their actions. The prison system was built upon this premise in that an individual will be deterred from crime because, in the end, they will not gain from illegal activities. Forgery, counterfeiting and the habitual passing of bad checks are examples of white collar crime that fall within the Rational Choice Theory (Keel, 1997). The Opportunities Theory plays a role in the causation of all crimes. When given a relatively easy opportunity to defraud without a reasonable likelihood of being punished for the actions an otherwise law-abiding citizen could be tempted to cross the line of ethical actions. Padding an expense account is an example of this type of crime (Felson & Clarke, 1998, p. 11).. The Behaviour Genetics Theory postulates a biological explanation for crime. While the genetic make-up of an individual does not induce any specific actions, anti-social behaviour can be facilitated by neurotransmitters in the brain and hormonal imbalances which generate tendencies to act in a particular way. “Low self-control is strongly and inversely related to the neurotransmitter/neuromodulator serotonin, and that serotonin level is heritable” (Robinson, 2004). Abnormal serotonin levels have been shown to be an origin of criminal behaviours of all natures including corporate crime because an individual lacks the natural ability to control their impulsive thoughts thereby acting upon them. Everyone has thoughts they would never act upon. Those with this abnormality tend to act first and think later. The theory of Low Self-Control speaks to environmental rather than genetic factors but, like the biological explanation and the Opportunity Theory, could be tied to all types of criminal activity. However, various aspects of this theory apply directly to white collar crime. Generally, control theories inspect aspects of behaviour in association with four individual characteristics that explain why people do not commit crimes so as to identify the reasons others do. These include an individual’s openness for personal attachments to family and friends in addition to an ease with social and workplace associations; their level of participation in typical social activities; how principled they are, a belief in the rule of law and social structures and their dedication to legitimate personal successes. According to this widely accepted theory, the more of these features an individual possesses, the less likely they are to pursue criminal behaviours. The opposite also holds true. Strong principles, social ties, activity levels and the desire to excel builds proportionately, an individual’s self esteem increases while strengthening self control. Low self control accentuates criminal activity. This theory applies to all socioeconomic classes and types of employment (Hirschi, 1969). . This discussion has thus far focused on criminological theories that explain the causes of, but not limited to, white collar corporate-type crimes. A number of other theories such as Socialisation, Differential Association, Labeling and Cultural Deviation are not related to corporate crime. The Socialisation Theory dictates that criminal behaviour is a learned response because of long-term associations with groups or persons who habitually practice criminal activities. This theory is normally more suitable to forms of deviant crimes such as drug use and prostitution. Differential Association, one of the most prominent of the socialization theories, maintains that deviant behaviour is learned as are compliant behaviours. According to the theory, “each person is surrounded by people, definitions, norms, and behavior patterns that differ in that some are favorable to law violation while others are not. Whether or not a person becomes deviant will be a function of the relative mixture of these pro-criminal and anti-criminal experiences” (Petee, 1987). The Labeling theory is similar to the Socialisation Theory in that it emphasizes that deviance originates from interactions and relationships between people in society. Being labeled a ‘criminal’ becomes an individual’s public and self identity.  They are characterised first as criminal then an employee, spouse or parent, etc.  This identity invites public scrutinisation which could cause the person to be shamed into obeying the law. However, it is likely that this label will have the opposite effect. People who are labeled in this manner eventually normally abandon hope of ever fitting back into society.  “An identity change takes place where the person’s self-concept loses any further stake in conformity, and because a deviant self-image is now in place, there’s pressure to behave consistently as deviant” (Silver, 1974). Moreover, individuals labeled as deviants are inclined to begin to associate with others labeled as criminals and, at the same time, stop associating with their law-abiding acquaintances. Many labeling theorists consider that the justice system exhibits a lower-class bias when prosecuting offenders. Labeling may affect a white collar criminal after the fact but is not the genesis of that specific behaviour. The Cultural Deviantisation Theory argues that class distinctions and economic circumstances affect deviant behavioural patterns within societies. The interpretation of deviant behaviour, of course, differs from one social structure to another and from one period of time to another. For example, what may have been viewed as deviant actions under Queen Victoria’s reign may not be today and accepted social behaviour in Britain may not be accepted in, for example, a middle eastern country. In addition, socially permissible actions in one economic class quite possibly would not be in another. Cultural deviantisation therefore must be viewed as culture, region and class specific. This theory describes an instrument utilised by the most influential and powerful of societies’ factions. The laws were written by the upper class which determined what constituted illegal actions so as to protect their specific interests. Criminal law has been described as “a coercive weapon of the state’s dominant class” (Petee, 1987). No better example of this statement is the state’s disproportionate method for aggressively prosecuting and incarcerating indigent petty thieves in comparison to the lack of detection efforts or sentencing regulations regarding corporate crime. “These offenses were generally more costly and injurious to public safety and street crime, but these offenses seldom received heavy criminal sanctions – or often any criminal sanctions at all” (Petee, 1987). The Cultural Deviantisation Theory does not explain the motivations or causations for white collar crime. It does, however, provide some reasoning for other criminal actions generally related to the poorer sectors such as robbery and vandalism. Corporate or white collar crime has been identified by several theories to be caused be many reasons, such as employees who perceived themselves to be treated unfairly who seek retribution, (general strain theory). The breakdown of families and/or pressures from misguided associations (Social Disorganisation Theory) causing an individual to be disassociated from the community leading to systematic and repetitive criminal activities provides another possible explanation. The Opportunities Theory plays a role in all crimes and The Behaviour Genetics Theory suggests a biological reason for criminal behaviour. Evidently, greed, revenge, a feeling of self-importance and associating with the people your mother warned you about could all be elements that could potentially lead to corporate crime if the cause is not genetic. References Agnew, Robert. (1985). “A Revised Strain Theory of Delinquency.” Social Forces. Vol. 64, N. 1, pp. 151-167. Agnew, Robert. (1994). “Delinquency and the Desire for Money.” Justice Quarterly. Vol. 11, N. 4, pp. 411-427. Felson, Markus & Clarke, Ronald V. (1998). “Opportunity Makes the Thief.” Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. Retrieved 15 August 2006 from Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved 15 August 2006 from Keel, R.O. (1997). Rational Choice and Deterrence Theory. St. Louis, MO: University of Missouri, St. Louis. Retrieved 15 August 2006 from Petee. (1987). “Sociology 530 Paper.” Handbook of Social Psychology; Handbook of Sociology. Retrieved 15 August 2006 from Robinson, Matthew B. (2004). Why Crime? An Integrated Systems Theory of Antisocial Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Retrieved 15 August 2006 from Silver, I. (Ed.). (1974). The Crime Control Establishment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Read More