crimes of the powerful Flashcards
white collar and corporate crime
sutherland aimed to challenge the stereotype that crime is a lower class phenomenon, however his definition fails to distinguish between two different crimes:
occupational crime - committed by employees simply for for their own personal gain often against the organisation they work for
corporate crime - committed by the employees for their organisation in pursuit of its goals
many crimes do not break criminal law
pearce and tombs - define corporate crime as ‘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 business
tombs - argues that the difference between these 2 types of offence is more about who has the power to define an act as a crime rather than how harmful the act is
tombs - corporate crime does more harm than street crime due to its enormous costs. widespread routine and pervasive
types of corporate crime
financial crime - tax evasion, bribery, money laundering and illegal accounting. victims include other companies, shareholders, taxpayers and government
crimes against consumers -false labelling and selling unfit goods (ford pinto)
crimes against employees - sexual and racial discrimination, violation of wage laws, rights to take industrial action and of health and safety laws - 1,100 work related deaths a year involve employers breaking the law
crimes against the environment - illegal pollution of air, water and land, including toxic waste dumping - in 2015, volkswagen admitted to installing software in 11 million diesel globally. it disguised when emission levels were over 40 times the legal limit
state corporate crime - harms committed when government institutions and businesses cooperate to pursue their goals
invisibility of corporate crime:
the media
give limited coverage to corporate crime reinforcing the stereotype that crime is a working class phenomenon
describe corporate crime in sanitised language, as technical infringements rather than real crime
embezzlement becomes accounting irregularities
invisibility of corporate crime:
lack of political will
politicians rhetoric of being tough on crime is focused instead on street crime
the home office uses surveys to discover the ‘true extent’ of ordinary crime
does not do so for corporate crime
invisibility of corporate crime:
crimes are complex
law enforcers are often understaffed, under resourced and lacking technical expertise to investigate effectively
invisibility of corporate crime:
de labelling
corporate crime is consistently filtered out from the process of criminalisation
offences are often labelled as civil rather than criminal
even in criminal cases, penalties are often fines rather than jail
investigation and prosecution are also limited
invisibility of corporate crime:
under reporting
the victim is society at large instead of an identifiable individual
individuals may not realise they have been victimised
even if victims are aware, they may not regard it as real crime or feel powerless against authorities to report it
why have corporate crimes become more visible since 2008?
since the financial crisis the activities of a range of different people may have made corporate crime more visible
campaigns against corporate tax aviodance such as occupy and uk uncut, investigative journalists, and the media
neoliberal policies such as the marketisation and privatisation of public services mean that large corporations are more involved in peoples lives and open to public scrutiny
explanations of corporate crime:
strain theory
box - if a company cannot achieve its goal of maximising profit by legal means it may employ illegal ones instead. when business conditions become limited become more difficult, and profitability is squeezed, companies become more tempted to break the law
clinard and yeager - law violations by large companies increased as their financial performance deteriorated , suggesting a willingness to innovate
explanations of corporate crime:
differential association
sutherland - sees crime as a learned behaviour. the less we associate with people who hold attitudes favourable to the law, the more likely we are to become deviant
if a company’s culture justifies committing crimes to achieve goals, employees will be socialised into criminality
geis - individuals joining companies where where illegal price fixing was practiced became involved in it as part of their socialisation
sykes and matza - individuals can deviate more easily if they can produce justifications to neutralise moral objections to their misbehaviour
explanations of corporate crime:
labelling theory
de labelling - businesses and professionals have the power to avoid labelling - they can afford expensive experts such as lawyers to help them avoid activities they were involved in, such as tax avoidance schemes, being labelled, or to get the seriousness of any charges reduced
reluctance of law enforcement agencies to investigate or prosecute, also reduces the number of offences officially recorded
this means that sociologists who rely on official statistics will under estimate the extent of these offences. clinard and yeager are criticised for taking law enforcement agency records for granted as true measures of the extent of corporate crime
explanations of corporate crime:
marxism
corporate crime is normal in capitalist society because its goal is to maximise profits and inevitably causes harm
box - capitalism has created a mystification - it has spread the ideology that corporate crime is less harmful than working class crime. sees crime as criminogenic because if they find legitimate opportunities for profit are blocked, they will resort to illegal techniques aimed at competitors, consumers or the public
capitalism’s control of the state means it is able to avoid making or enforcing laws that conflict with its interests
pearce - this sustains the illusion that it is the exception rather than the nor, avoiding causing a crisis of legitimacy for capitalism
companies comply with the law only if they see it as enforced strictly - where effective controls are lacking - developing countries where capitalism shows its true face selling unsafe products, paying low wages and working in unsafe conditions.
evaluation
over predicts the amount of business crime
nelken - it is unrealistic to assume that all businesses would offend if it was not for the risk of punishment - maintaining the goodwill of other companies that they must do business with may also prevent them from resorting to crime
doesn’t explain non profit making state agencies such as the police, army or civil services . state agencies in former communist countries committed crimes against health and safety and consumers
law abiding may also be more profitable than law breaking - braithwaite found that us pharmaceutical companies that complied with federal drug administrations regulations to obtain licenses for their products in america were then able to access lucrative markets in poorer countries who couldn’t afford drug testing facilities - relied on fda’s licensing procedures
