The Context of Corporate Crime - Literature review Example

Crime in Context Introduction Corporate crime, according to Simpson, is crime done by “white-collars.” It is a criminal activity done by persons who have a high social status and are very much respected in their positions. They use this advantage to violate the law. (2002, 6) As a white collar crime, it actually has many definitions. It could mean a conduct of corporation, or employees acting on behalf of a corporation an act punishable by the law. (Braithwaite 1984, 6.) Therefore, it means it goes beyond the realm of criminal law into the civil and administrative law as well. Moreover, the illegal actors include both the corporation and their representatives and either one or both will be selected according to the kind of act committed, the amount of evidence present, the preference of the prosecution and the offending factors. Of course, there would also be other factors which can be included. According to John Braithwaite, there exists numerous documentation of the failure of the criminal justice system to control corporation.(1982, 1466). There had been some reforms and modest increases in budgets for enforcing the law but the problem is unlikely to be remedied by this. That is why he suggested that those who are studying corporate crime must adopt the long view. For control strategies to develop, radical approaches become necessary. Beginning in the 19th century, the rise of corporation as a form of business has lead to a great many controversy. Typically, Americans fear unbridled power caused by the growth in number and size of business corporations to concentrate economic power. In proportion to this was also the efforts to develop reliable and effective means of controlling them. According to some, criminal penalties are very appropriate to corporate criminals. As far as opposing view is concern, it is suggested that focus should be made on the prevention and remediation rather than on punishment due to social contributions that corporate offenders have on the community. This paper seeks to develop a more concrete explanation of what corporate crime is and differentiate it from other act which may be corporate-crime-like but upon further investigation would reveal to be something else. Further more, this paper also seeks to investigate adding gravity to corporate crime by shifting it from civil (in most cases) to the criminal spectrum and the motivating factors behind this push. Corporate Crime vs. Embezzlement Of course, motivation is important in this case as well. On the whole, the illegality is that benefits were pursued not for individual but for organizational end. There could be several reasons for doing this. Among these include having greater profit, managing the uncertainty in the market, having lower costs to the company, or putting the rival out of business. Other reasons include pollution of the environment, engaging in financial fraud, manipulation, fixing prices, creating and maintaining work conditions which are hazardous to the employees, producing and unsafe products knowingly. The list could go on along this line. This offense have been empirically shown to be linked to the organizations perceptions of their needs such as pressures and strains brought about the decline and growth. Managers adapts to the reality under different conditions of munificence and scarcity. Actually, the decision to be involved in a corporate crime has nothing to do with personal needs. Rather, it has mainly a lot to do with organizational contingencies, priorities and needs. That is why corporate crime must be distinguished from embezzlement. Embezzlement, though similar in some way to corporate crime in the sense that there could also be stealing involved, is caused by a persons illegal response to personal needs such as family considerations, indebtedness, perception of that a personal problem cannot be shared, greed, and revenge. (Cressey 1953, 12). In embezzlement, it can be readily seen that the victim is actually the organization. For corporate crime, however, many victims are produced such as the government, other companies, the environment, employees and the consumers. In other words, the company itself is not victimized directly. Therefore, when one talks of corporate crime, it is assumed that it is within an organizational contexts. Moreover, one would note that there is also involved is an organization with all its highly specialized positions. Thus, it can be readily noted that the crime done is autonomous but the way it was done was interactive and team-dependent. (Simpson 2002, 8) Some Examples of Corporate Crime In order to understand corporate crime better, here are some illustrations provided by Benson and Cullen (1998, 3-4). The first example happened on November 10, 1998 in Milwaukee. Wisconsin. Alarm sounded due to the presence of methane gas in the tunnel. A machine boring tunnel for the new sewer system automatically shut down at the this. Every one evacuated excep Tony Bell, Ron Kohne, and Rich Sochachki who reluctantly ordered the order of the project manager to go back into the tunnel. On their way, however, flames exploded and the three were incinerated. The District Attorney, due to this senseless loss of life, pressed charges against the project manager for criminal homicide. Second example took place in the Los Angeles. An apartment-finding service company made an add in the LA Times which was read by a woman. So, she went to their office, pay the fee of $50.00 and went to the three addresses given to her. The first two sites, however, were never vacated and havent even heard of the apartment-finding company. The third site, was an empty lot covered with weeds. So, she went back to the company and received three more addresses, which, just like the first three were of no use to here. When she came back again to the company to demand her money back, it was no longer in that location. Because of this, she filed a complain with the Consumers Affairs Division of the LA County District Attorneys Office. The third example occurred in Chicago. Two men were warned by the sanitary district inspector regarding their violation of the law when he saw them operating a metal-plating business out of small filthy garbage and the barrels containing residues of toxic chemicals used in the plating process were thrown in the backyard of the shop, rusting and leaking. Shortly after that, the metal platers loaded the hazardous trash in a truck and thrown them in a deserted lot in South Chicago late at night. The following day, a concerned mother found her daughter and other kids playing hide and sick on the barrel – their clothes with oily and smelly stains. So, she asked the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for advice. Fourth, an electronic appliance chain store advertised in a Sunday paper that they have a limited quantity of soon to be obsolete model of television which will be sold at 50% off on one day only. What the advertisement failed to mention, however, was that there would only be one of these television per outlet. So, when customers asked for advertised television, the salesperson advised them that they are sold out already. Then, they were encouraged to buy a much more expensive model that is in stock. Many customers were upset but nobody complained. So, the company made a huge profit that day. Fifth could be McDonalds but that would be another study in itself. However, those who would want to see why it was even mentioned here may see http://www.rotten.com/ library/crime/corporate/mcdonalds/. Criminalizing Corporate Crime It has been said that in order to solve crimes with such gravity as corporate crime which has a much wider scope, a “get tough on crime” policy should be implemented. (Freeman & Forcese, 1994). Practically, this would mean executing mandatory and longer sentences such as those for drug offenders and having them serve a prison time instead of the less punitive alternatives. Moreover, there have also been clamor to return to death penalty such when Pres. Bush of the United State of America pushed to legislate drug trafficking a capital crime. On more concrete terms, this would mean corporate offenders would face more criminal than civil cases. Moreover, this would also mean a sentencing parity between white collar and street criminal would be pursued and the maximum penalty shall be increased to a number of organizational offenses like it was done in the Major Fraud Act of 1986, the Sherman Act, and the Insider Trading and Securities Act. This punitive shift can be accounted to several reasons. One of the reasons presented in the inadequacies of the criminal justice process. (Simpson 2002, 11). In fact, some groups claim that justice had never been blind in the sense that race, gender, and social class affect who will be charged, how they will be processed, and punished. (Hagan, J. 1974, 437-383.) Conservatives belief that this crack in the criminal justice system is a potential threat to social order. From the point of view of radical, on the other hand, this should result in equity in criminal justice sentencing. The logic behind this is as follows: If the poor minorities are being sent to prison, the middle and upper class corporate offenders (who are primarily white) should be sent to the prison, too. In the perception of the public, manipulation of the law, escaping detection, negating harsh sentences or avoiding criminal processing have too long been a characteristic of corporate power and influence. That is why now, they are clamoring for harsher treatment on the corporate criminals. Because of this pressure, the authorities was forced to eliminate or minimize disparity issues by rewriting criminal laws or expanding it so that such offenses would carry a similar weight as those of conventional crimes. An example of this would be the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. From another perspective, there are some say that instead on putting punishment to the limelight of debates, Benson and Cullen suggested that the focus be placed on prevention and remediation. This is because corporate offenders, through the taxes they make, often have important contributions to local communities. Aside from this, they also provide jobs. The process of prosecution could only disrupt their business operations and even force some business to close or transfer to another location which lowers the local tax base and costs people their jobs. Whatever perspective is taken, the author believes that a successful persecution of corporate crime cases musts be pursued. Since the dynamics of this is different from the traditional street crime, the author agrees with Benson and Cullen that coordinated efforts of multiple agencies is needed. (1995, 135) In this case, reports from victim is less reliable and harder to track won because of the complexity of the evidence and the ability of companies to hire lawyers to legally obstruct the process of investigation. Moreover, jurisdictional lines are also crossed as in the case of telemarketers or when waste is illegally disposed to another province or locality. It is therefore, imperative, for the prosecutor to be problem solver since cases are difficult, time-consuming and costly to investigate. One practical approach in doing this is by revamping approach to this problem. For instance, by encouraging key personnel such as safety engineers to know their legal responsibilities and liabilities, they will not only be motivated to attend more closely to the safety of their workers – they are also given an important information to be able to lobby worker safety program to corporate leaders. Also, the issue of corporate probation must be looked upon by policy makers. For instance, a home for the aged has been found to be violating certain safety policies. This situation, however, should not be addressed by measures such as closing the home. For if this would be the case, it would appear that it the elders and the families are the ones being punished since they would be most affected by the closure. Instead, it is suggested that supervision be extended to the patients so that they would not be very much inconvenienced by the closure. This doesnt imply, however, that the law would be watered down. It just means that when others are affected, the full extent must not be pursued in favor of the lowly people who would be affected by the closure. Instead, the punishment must only be confined to the corporation. Conclusion With the rise of abuses affecting so many lives, there has been a clamour to elevate corporate crimes which usually are regarded as civil cases to criminal cases. One reason for this is the perceived inequity between the upper class citizen (who usually commit this type of crimes) and lower class citizens who see this as a great injustice. In essence, they are demanding that if the poor are punished, the rich should be punished as well. However, there have been some groups who are questioning this since elevating it to this level would have graver punishment such as the closure of the company which would, in turn, affect the lives of more people who may not be involved in the crime. Moreover, even the In any cases, a step toward the resolution of this problem would be to have a general consensus of what the definition of corporate crime should be but deal with each case uniquely, making sure that the innocent would not be punished with the guilty as in the case when a nursing home is closed, causing great stress even to patients. Bibliography BENSON, M. & CULLEN, F. 1998. Combating Corporate Crime: Local Prosecutors at Work. Boston: Northeastern University Press. BRAITHWAITE, J. 1982. Enforced Self-Regulation: A New Strategy for Corporate Crime Control. Corporate and Organizational Crime, 80(7), 1466-1507. BRAITHWAITE, J. 1984. Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry. London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul CLINARD, M. & YEAGER, P. 2005. Corporate Crime. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers CRESSEY, D. 1953. Other Peoples Money. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press. DOWEY, M. 1979. The Corporate Crime of the Century. [online] Available: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1979/11/dowie.html, [17 December 2007] FREEMAN, A. & FORCESE, C. 1994. Get Touch on Corporate Crime. [online] http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/corpcr94.html [17 December 2007] GOBERT, J. & PUNCH, M. Rethinking Corporate Crime. London: Butterworths HAGAN, J. 1974. “Extra-legal Attributes and Criminal Sentencing” Law and society Review, (8) 357-383. MOKHIBER, R. 2007. Twenty Things You Should Know About Corporate Crime. [online] Available: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/13/1859/ [17 December 2007] (Name of Author Unavailable). Mc Donalds. [online] Available: http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/corporate/mcdonalds/ [17 December 2007] SIMPSON, S. 2002. Corporate Crime, Law, and Social Control. USA :Cambridge University Press. SNIDER, L. & PEARCE, F. (ed.) 1995. Corporate Crime: Contemporary Debates, Toronto: University Press of Toronto UK LEARNING. 2001. Crime According to Marx. [online] Available: http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/159.html [17 December 2007] WELLS, C. 2001. Corporations and Criminal Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press Read More