Definition of White Collar Crime - Term Paper Example

WHITE COLLAR CRIME “The possibility of bringing white-collar criminals to justice is ever receding over the horizon” -Sara Paretsky The above ment, perhaps, portrays effectively, the dilemma faced by law makers in terms of dealing with such type of crimes which, over the years, have become increasingly difficult to define, primarily on account of the sheer range of crimes committed and which fall under this broad category. One of the key reasons behind the lack of adequate response to such kinds of crimes lies in the fact that unlike other forms of crimes, white collar / corporate crimes does not involve ‘blood on the streets’ but on the contrary, it involves less apparent or direct harm / injury to the victims, making it difficult to detect and subsequently punished (Clarke, 1990). Another probable reason is the fact that such crimes are not personal in nature, and there may not be an express intent to harm the victims, for instance where the crime committed involves breaking of safety laws which may lead to endangering the lives of workers or employees. Thus although white collar / corporate crimes do attract criminal proceedings against the perpetrators, and are subject to the criminal laws, but they are hardly treated in the same manner as other forms of crimes, such as thefts, burglary, or homicides. Furthermore, there is also wide ranging concern over the lack of proper structure to such crimes, which makes it difficult to define and hence attract suitable laws to prevent it in the future. There is also no common consensus about the structural dimension to such crimes – some consider that all the citizens are or may fall a victim to such crimes, regardless of age, ethnicity, gender or socio-economic backgrounds; while others argue that the rich often prey on the poor and powerless in such type of crimes (Shichor et al., 2000). Various definitions and variations of the term have emerged over the years, from the year since the crime was first recognized and acknowledged, which in turn have further complicated the concept and expanded the scope in which such crimes can be classified. The issue of white collar / corporate crime, raises several questions, right from the very definition of the term to the manner in which it is or should be treated by criminal justice agencies. Since such type of crimes are wider in scope and context, questions and doubts are also raised with regard to its criminality, especially when compared with other forms of crimes. The analysis of white collar / corporate crime thus, moves beyond the purview of criminology and conventional concerns over it; and ventures into other broader areas such as the type of financial regulations which are in place and which are broken or tampered with; the occupational or safety hazards involved which may put entire communities into danger; consumer protection against fraudulent malpractices by trades, manufacturers etc; as well as the threats to the overall environment in general. This paper, thus attempts to assess, explore and analyze the impact of definitions and its influence on the response to it. It attempts to seek answer to the very basic question: Do definitions matter? and if they do, then to what extent and in what manner do they affect the responses to it, the kind of punishments which these types of crime attract and the difficulties faced by the law makers in bringing to book those responsible / guilty of such crimes, on account of sheer lack of laws that may prevent such crimes from occurring. Introduction and Definitions: The term was first defined by an eminent criminologist and sociologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939. According to Sutherland, white collar crime is defined as: "one committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation.” (Sutherland, 1949, Pp.9) Historically, the study of criminology has often dealt with crime as an activity of the poor or people belonging to lower social class. This concept was challenged by Sutherland, who offered an alternative perspective on the issue of corporate or white collar crimes. He stated that: “that persons of the upper socio-economic class engage in much criminal behaviour; that this criminal behaviour differs from the criminal behaviour of the lower socio-economic class principally in the administrative procedures which are used in dealing with the offenders and that variations in administrative procedures are not significant from the point of view of causation of crime” (Sutherland, 1949, Pp. 9) It is worth noting that the status of the offender has been highly debated and more emphasis was laid on the actual harm caused to the victims in a position of trust in an organizational environment. Moreover, the organizations where corporate crimes are committed, are subject to and bound by corporate and other regulatory laws and hence do not attract criminal proceedings in the same manner as other crimes. Sutherland, further pointed out through extensive research, that the term white collar is essentially associated with the upper class which comprised of managers or senior management who were often found guilty of engaging in violation of civil statutes. This, according to him, is a solid basis for classifying them as criminals and applying the general laws of criminology to those involved in white collar / corporate crimes. Others however, argued that criminology essentially deals with the study of crime and hence only those activities which are covered by criminal law can be considered as crime (Tappan, 1977). This definition if accepted would lead to disastrous consequences, with the result that most of the corporate crimes will be rife with impunity and the perpetrators of such crime will not be made liable for their activities. Another alternative definition was provided by Croall (2001) who defined it as: “An abuse of a legitimate occupational role that is regulated by law” (Pp. 163) United States Department of Justice defined white collar crime as: “[n]onviolent crime for financial gain committed by means of deception by persons whose occupational status is entrepreneurial, professional or semi-professional and utilizing their special occupational skills and opportunities; also, nonviolent crime for financial gain utilizing deception and committed by anyone having special technical and professional knowledge of business and government, irrespective of the person’s occupation” (Green, 2006). One of the key characteristics of white collar or corporate crimes is its ambiguity in being classified as a crime or being given the criminal status (Nelken, 2002). Most of the definitions provided, for white collar / corporate crime, focus on the actions of individuals and did not take into account the crimes committed by organizations as a whole (Vito, Maahs, & Holmes, 2007). Thus in turn, raising the question, about the liability of the crimes committed i.e. whether it is an individual who should be brought to book or whether the entire organization be charged for non compliance of statutory regulations. The responses, thus do, vary in accordance with the manner in which the crimes are defined. Types of white collar crimes and the responses: The uncertainties which are present in both - the white-collar crime as well as the reaction it generates is often widely discussed and debated across various spectrums, and is often used as a barometer against which all other aspects of the phenomenon are judged and evaluated. A section of researchers have also pointed out the fact that the concept is rife with inaccuracies in definition, scope and content which in turn is reciprocated by the ambiguous reactions, to such crimes. Nelken (2002) has argued that: “while there is still much disagreement over how to define and explain white-collar crime, the "ambiguity about [its] nature and the best way of responding to it, forms an essential key to the topic" (In Pontell, Geis, 2007, Pp. 313). The uncertainties regarding this concept exist not only in terms of the manner in which it is defined but it extends to various levels of this phenomenon. For instance, the range of crimes which can be classified under the white-collar / corporate crime category, and whether such crimes are actually crime as per the rules and definitions laid down in the law of criminology, especially considering the fact that not all infringements of law are prosecuted under criminal law, and that most of the offences committed under white-collar or corporate category, are hardly regarded as actual offences by the society at large. Furthermore, it is also argued that the prime question that remains to be answered is whether, when discussed from an organizational perspective, the context of white-collar / corporate crime suggest that the perpetrators of such crimes are actually engaging in a crime or a destructive behaviour which may tend to harm the society at large or whether they are merely engaging in activities which are not really categorized as ‘deviant’ from their routine jobs (Pontell, Geis, 2007). The disagreement over the definitions also leads to varied responses. For instance, while defining white collar / corporate crime, Sutherland emphasized the role played by rich and economically well off offenders, who enjoy a high status and hold a position of respect in their organizations but in the process, he largely ignored the other categories of offenders, for instance those belonging to middle class who may have indulged in white collar crimes (Weisburd et al., 1990). Thus, questioning the very premise of the definition and raising doubts about the significance given to the characteristics of the offenders while defining such a crime. Donald Newman, provided the following definition of white collar crime: ‘The chief criterion for a crime to be "white collar" is that it occurs as a part of, or a deviation from, the violators occupational role. Technically, this is more critical than the type of law violated or the relative prestige of the violator, although these factors have necessarily come to be major issues in the white-collar controversy, first, because most of the laws involved are not part of the traditional criminal code, and second, because most of the violators are a cut above the ordinary criminal in social standing.” (In Lewis, 2002, Pp. 17) The penalties or prosecution for white-collar / corporate crimes vary in accordance with the type of crime committed. As discussed in the previous sections of this study, white-collar / corporate crimes are dealt under a separate law, i.e. by the corporate or regulatory bodies and are not treated under the criminal law. The regulatory prosecutions hence vary in terms of penalties from lower to higher, in accordance with the type of crime, and the scope and magnitude of damage caused. The main focus while dealing with corporate crime, however, is the breach of regulation as opposed to the actual consequences of such crime regardless of whether such an act has lead to death, injury or financial loss. The sentencing too, is based on the extent of damage caused and rarely involves or attracts punishments by taking into consideration the victims perspectives (Croall and Ross, 2003). There is hardly any specific group of offences which can easily be classified as ‘white-collar crime’. The concept has been used to illustrate various crimes which are committed by individuals, essentially belonging to higher social class, or enjoying a higher status and a position of repute in their organizations (Sutherland, 1940). Such offences cover a wide range of crimes including property crimes, embezzlement, fraud, forgery etc which tend to violate corporate laws, or laws related to taxation, social security, or other similar legislations developed for the protection and security of the public at large. However due to various limitations observed in Sutherland’s definition, the definition of the term white collar crime has been widened to include any sort of occupational deviance by any individual regardless of their status in the organization, which leads to violation of professional ethics. It would thus include immoral acts conducted by an individual by exploiting other individuals for personal gain, for instance sexual favours demanded by a top level executive from an employee in exchange for a promotion. While some authors, define the term white collar crime to include any sort of illegal behaviour which does not fall under the category of conventional street crime (Geis, 1991). Yet others, define it to signify a breach of trust and lay less emphasis on the social status of the offender (Shapiro 1990). Evidently, the broad and general definitions provided by various authors make it all the more difficult to elicit a universal response. Thus the responses vary in accordance with the definitions. For instance, whether or not a crime can be considered as a white collar crime, will depend on whether the emphasis is laid on the social status of the offender or on the offence. Moreover, not all frauds appear to be equal in scope or magnitude of loss caused. Frauds related to social security or taxation, are both considered as offences against the state, however, they are both dealt with differently in different courts. Hence each offence is dealt with differently and generates a different response in accordance to the category of white collar crime it falls under, and in the manner in which it is defined. Furthermore, many argue that not all activities which involve a misconduct leading to large scale damage to public health can be classified as "crime". According to them, the corporate bodies do possess the freedom to make individual choices which is comparatively more important than the health risks associated with their corporate goals. For instance, in case of corporations involved in production or manufacture of deadly products or products which are likely to cause damage to the consumers such as cigarettes, their freedom of choice should be given more consideration while the consumers on the other hand are free to make their own choices of whether or not to consume such harmful products. It must also be noted, that according to various definitions discussed above, any corporate activity which involves public health risk, can be categorized under the heading of corporate or white collar crime. However, in such a case, where the corporate may plead freedom of choice as their basic right, the definitions do not hold true. Since executing ones own free will includes the freedom of choice which is granted to all citizens, although whether or not it mitigates personal harm or injury to others is a debatable issue. Similarly in case of tobacco companies which advertise their products to youth markets, influencing them to consume the product which they know, is injurious to health. But the issue of freedom of choice, entails the buyers to beware, and make informed decisions while purchasing or consuming a particular product rather than hold the manufacturers or corporate organizations guilty of crime. Thus although all the elements of what constitutes a white collar crime may be present in such activities, the responses do vary according to each individual definition put forward to deal with the wide range of crimes which fall under this category. Also, there is a question as to whether emphasis should be given to the ‘actors’ involved in the crime or the ‘acts’ is a highly debatable issue, which tends to significantly influence the responses to such crimes. Sutherland’s definition point towards the role of offenders and their wealth, in white collar crime, thus if this definition is to be followed, the responses will be based on the characteristics of the individual offenders rather than the whole act. This however, becomes more contradictory when studied in contrast with the laws which protect discrimination of its citizens on the basis of their wealth, ethnicity, or socio-economic backgrounds. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the definitions do matter a lot, and play a significant role in ascertaining the type of punishments which can be attributed to such crimes. References: Clarke, M. (1990) Business Crime: Its Nature and Control. Cambridge: Polity Press Croall, H. and Ross, J. (2003) ‘Sentencing the corporate offender’, in N. Hutton, and C. Tata, (eds), Sentencing and Society. Aldershot: Ashgate Geis, G., R. F. Meirer and L. M. Salinger (eds) (1995) White-collar Crime Classic and Contemporary Views. New York: The Free Press. Green, S. P., (2006). Lying, cheating and stealing: a moral theory of white-collar crime, Oxford University Press Lewis, R. V., (2002). White collar crime and offenders: a 20 year longitudinal cohort study, Routledge Publication Nelken, D. (2002) ‘White collar crime’, in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner, (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pontell, H. N., Geis, G., (2007). International handbook of white-collar and corporate crime, Springer Publication, Pp. 313 - 315 Shichor, D., Sechrest, D. and Doocy, J. (2000) ‘Victims of investment fraud’, in H. Pontell and D. Shichor (eds), ‘Contemporary Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honor of Gilbert Geis’. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shapiro, S. (1990) ‘Collaring the crime, not the criminal: re-considering the concept of white-collar crime’, American Sociological Review, 55 June 346-365. Sutherland, E. (1949) White Collar Crime, NewYork: Holt, Reinhart and Winston Tappan, P. (1977) ‘Who is the criminal?’ in G. Geis, R. F. Meirer and L. Salinger (eds) White-Collar Crime Classic and Contemporary Views, New York: The Free Press 50- 59 Vito, G. F., Maahs, J. R., & Holmes, R. M., (2007). Criminology, Jones & Bartlett Publication, Pp. 415 – 417 Weisburd, D., E. F. Chayet, and E. J. Waring, (1990) ‘White-Collar Crime and Criminal Careers: Some Preliminary Findings’, Crime and Delinquency, 36: 342-55. Read More