Crimes of the powerful Flashcards
Intro- Selective enforcement
Law= selectively enforced so higher-class/corporate offenders are less likely to be prosecuted
* Reiman and Leighton- ‘The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison’; shows the more likely the crime is to be committed by a higher-class person, the less likely it is to be treated as an offence
White collar and corporate crime
‘WCC’- coined by Sutherland; defined it as “a crime committed by a person of respectablity and high social status in the course of their occupation”- aimed to challenge stereotype of crime being a lower-class phenomenon; but his definition fails to distinguish between two types of crime:
1. occupational crime- committed by employees for their own personal gain
2. corporate crime- committed by employees for their organisation in persui of its goals
+ many harms caused by powerful dont break criminal laws (e.g., administrative offences- failing to comply with codes of practice laid down by government regulators)- how to overcome this problem?
Pearce and Tombs- widened definition; “any illegal act or omission that is the result of deliberate decisions or culpable negligence by a legitimate business organisation and that is intended to benefit the business”
Tombs- difference between definitions is more about who has the power to define act as criminal rather than how harmful the act is- powerful corporations can influence laws so their actions are not criminalised
White collar and corporate crime: The scale and types
W-C/CC does far more harm than ‘ordinary/’street’ crime; e.g., estimates put cost of W-CC in the U.S. at over 10x that of ordinary crime:
Tombs- CC has enormous costs: physical, environmental and economic- CC not just the result of a few ‘bad apples’ rather its ‘widespread. routine and pervasive’; CC covers wide range of acts/omissions including:
1. Financial crimes- e.g., tax evasion, money laundering, etc. Victims? other companies, taxpayers etc.
2. Crimes against consumers- e.g., false labelling, selling unfit goods (French gov in 2011 recommended women with breast implants from certain manufactere have them removed because they were filled with dangerous and not medical sillicone)
3. Crimes against employees- e.g., sexual, racial discrimination, violations of employee protections (Palmer- occupational disease causes 50,000 deaths a year in the UK)
4. Crimes against the environment- e.g., illegal pollution
5. State-corporate crime- Kramer and Michalowski- harms committed in persuit of government institution/business corporations goals- increasingly imporatn because private companies work alongside government in diff ares (e.g., privatised public sectors like winning the ‘war on terror’; private companies to US military accussed in involvement of torture of Iraqi detainees during American occupation)
White collar and corporate crime: The abuse of trust
High status professionals occupy positions of trust- Carrabine et al; we entrust them with out finance/health/security/personal info… etc.- this status however gives them opportunity for abuse of trust
* e.g., UK tribanal found tax avoidance scheme devised by accountants Ernst and young for wealthy clients-** Sikka** estimates could’ve cost the taxpayer £300 mill per yr
* most notortious case: GP Harold Shipman (2000)- convicted of murder of 15 patients, but over period of 23 yrs, believed to have murdered at least another 200
* in 1976, convicted of obtaining powerful opiate pethidine by forgery + in the same yr, obtained enough morphine to kill 360 ppl- however, he only recieved a warning from general medical council and was allowed to keep working
This violates trust society places in professionals: Sutherland- makes WCC greater threat to society than w/c ‘street’ crime
The invisibility of corporate crime
Despite of this, compared to street crime, the crimes of the powerful are relatively invisible- even when visible, they are not seen as ‘real’ crime at all- why?:
1. the media- limited coverage to issues, reinforcing stereotype that crime is a w/c phenomenon, describe it in santised language (e.g., embezzlement is ‘accounting irregularities’)
2. lack of political will- politicians rhetoric on being ‘tough on crime’ is focused instead on street crime
3. the crimes are often complex- law enforcers are understaffed, under-resourced, and lack technical expertise
4. de-labelling- CC consistently filtered out from process of criminalisation (e.g., offences are defined as civil not criminal, and when they are, penalties are fines not jail0
5.** under-reporting**- victim is often society at large, not just individuals, so they may be unaware they have been victimised
The invisibility of corporate crime: Partial invisibility?
Those factors help to remove CC from dominant definitions of crime and ‘law and order’ agenda- rendering it invisible
* but since 2008 financial crisis, activities have made CC more visible (e.g., campaigns against corporate tax avoidance such as Occupy and UK Uncut)
* also, neoliberal policies such as marketisation and privatisation of public services mean large corps are more involved in people’s lives, so more exposed to public scrutiny
Explanations of corporate crime
variety of explanations of WC/CC- mostly general theories applies, sometimes conbines diff therories for explanation
Explanations of corporate crime: Strain theory
Merton- deviance results from inability to achieve goals that society’s culture prescribes by using legitimate means (e.g., innovation)
* applying this theory- Box; if a company cant achieve goals of maximising profit by legal means, it might employ illegal ones, so when business conditions become more difficult and profitablity is squeezed, companies are tempted to break laws
* e.g., Clinard and Yeager- law violations of large companies increased as financial performance deteriorated, suggesting willingness to ‘innovate’ to achieve profit goals
Explanations of corporate crime: Differential association
Sutherland- crime is a behaviour learned from others in a social context- the less we associate with people holding attitudes favourable to the law + more we associate with people with criminal attitudes= more likely we are to become deviant ourselves
* companies culture justifying commiting crimes= employees will be socialised into criminality (e.g., Geis; found individuals joining companies where illegal price-fixing was practised became involved in it as part of socialisation)
Can link this to two other concepts:
1. Deviant subcultures- groups who share set of norms/values at odds with rest of society; offer deviant solutions to members’ shared problems (in this case the problem of achieving corp goals)
2. Technique of neutralisation- Skyes and Matza; individuals can deviate more easily if they can produce justifications to neutralise moral objections to misbehaviour (e.g., WC criminals may blame the victim)
Explanations of corporate crime: Labelling theory
Act= criminal if it has been labelled as such- w/c more likely to have actions labelled as criminal
* Cicourel- m/c can negotiate non-criminal labels for misbehaviour (e.g., ‘youthful high spirits’ rather than ‘vandalism’)
* De-labelling- applying this in an approach Nelken calls ‘de-labelling’/’non-labelling’
* businesses have power to avoid labelling (e.g., can afford expensive experts like lawyers/accountants to help them avoid activities like tax avoidance schemes being labelled)
* reluctance/inability of law enforcement agencies to investigate/prosecute= reduced number of offences officialy recorded as such
* sociologists relying of OS innevitably under-estimate extent of offences (e.g., Clinard and Yeager- criticised for taking law enforcement agency records for granted as true measures of extent of CC)
Explanations of corporate crime: Marxism
CC is a result of normal functioning of capitalism; cap goal? maximise profit, innevitably causes harm (e.g., deaths and injuries)
But cap has also successfully created what Box calls a ‘mystification’- it has spread ideology that corp crime is less widespread/harmful than w/c crime
* cap control of state means its able to avoid making/enforcing laws conflicting with own interests
* Pearce- some CC are prosecutes, but this gives illusion that its the exception rather than the norm; thus avoiding a crisis of legitimacy for capitalism
Some soc combined marx with other approaches like strain theory:
* e.g., Box- corps=criminogenic, why?- if they find legitimate opportunity for profit are blocked, they will resort to illegal techniques aimed at competitors, consumers or public
* companies only comply with law if they see it enforced strictly; where effective controls are lacking (e.g., developing countries), cap shows its true face (e.g., polluting environment, paying low wages in dangerous conditions)
AO3
- Strain/Marx over-predict amount of business crime- Nelken; unrealistic to assume all businesses would offend were it not for the risk of punishment (e.g., maintaining good will of other companies they must do business with may prevent them from resorting to crime)
- even if cap persuit of profit is a cause of CC, this doesnt explain crime in on-profit making state agencies (e.g., army/police)
- law-abiding may also be more profitable than law-breaking- Braithwaite; found US pharmceutical companies complying with Federal Drug Administration regulations to obtain licenses for products in America were able to access lucrative markets in poorer countries, which couldnt afford own drug-testing facilities, so relied on FDA’s licensing procedure as guarantee of quality
