Sutherland and his contribution
Sutherland had an approach to the definition of white-collar crime that was purely rooted in a sociological approach. It is Sutherland that first used the word white-collar crime. He viewed white-collar crime as a form of behavior towards which the attitude of the society is negative and also the description of this behavior and its pattern. Sutherland pointed out that some activities could not be categorized within the traditional definition of crime but are equally or even more harmful. He also offered an approach to white-collar crime that viewed an action as either criminal or noncriminal but which violates the law and finally as an informal act that can be termed antisocial and which violates a certain informal norm but does not contravene the criminal or civil law (Sutherland, 1940).
The greatest challenges within this approach were viewed in the fact that there are some acts within the clean water Act and others that overlap both as a crime and as violations of civil rights. With Sutherland’s approach, one could be made to believe that the distinction between deviant behaviors that are termed as criminal and those that are not criminal is completely arbitrary. In addition, this approach would cause a great strain to the extent that would call for criminal law reforms that would aim at making some behavior criminal which was initially noncriminal, and also making some criminal behavior noncriminal. This causes a great challenge (Green, 2005).
Challenges in the definition of white-collar crimes
White-collar crimes can be identified among other abstract terms within the legal realms and hence pose a great challenge in its definition. This has resulted in various definitions within and without various linguistic practices and disciplines. While a lot of effort has been put up to come up with a generally accepted definition, it has failed as most of the definitions have been inadequate. What, therefore, are the challenges that scholars face in coming up with a general definition?
One of the greatest challenges in the definition of this term is created by the diversity of its users. The specific “analytical or ideological concerns” by the various users of this term lead to different meanings. Users of this term are usually under different contextual approaches, hence, the meaning is created to favor their ideology and analytical concerns. The different contexts include social scientists, defense attorneys, enforcement officials, law schools, and prosecutors. All these institutions give meaning to this term that suits their ideology. Other issues in the definition have included a battle on whether the definition should only include criminal activities or should other non-criminal deviance be included within the definition. Secondly, the definition of the term has been marred by the difficulty in ascertaining whether the definition should be rooted in a particular group of actors like those in a given job level or those in high economic or social status or whether the definition should be founded on a particular act. Finally, if the definition is based on the act and not the actors, what factors should be considered within those acts to determine the inclusion of the act within the definition? These are the contagious issues that have marred the definition of white-collar crime (Green, 2005).
Some scholars have tried to substitute white-collar crime for elite deviance but this poses some challenges. One great challenge is the fact that criminal law is defined by actions that violate it and which can be termed as criminal. Using elite deviance fails to highlight this fundamental principle. Secondly, some behaviors can be termed criminal but not deviant while at the same time, there are behaviors that can be termed deviant but not criminal. Using elite deviance for white-collar crime fails to acknowledge this. Finally, some white-collar crimes are committed by persons who can not be categorized as elites. This means that using this term would be inappropriate (Freidrichs, 2007).
Costs of white-collar crimes
Undoubtedly, white-collar crimes have great consequences on the general economy of a country. However, it is very difficult to measure the extent of the damage caused by this crime due to several factors. Despite this, the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that the United States of America loses more than 300 billion dollars every year to this crime. This estimate is probably not accurate owing to the complications of this crime that leads to no reporting of these cases or complete failure of detection of the cases. This is caused by several factors among them commercial confidentiality culture within the organizations. This culture calls for efforts to prevent publicizing such cases so that the value of the shareholders is protected. Secondly, due to the relative social position of these crimes as compared to other forms of crime, the perpetrators of this crime have connections with big government officials and lawyers who could be manipulated so that crimes of this nature are completely not defined or if defined, are not enforced (Friedrichs, 2007).
Another factor that makes this crime to be treated differently from other types of crime is the fact that physical force applied and the degree of violence are the determinants of criminal penalties. Unlike other crimes where physical force is applied, white-collar jobs do not involve any physical force or violence. This results in white-collar crimes being allocated trivial penalties because of their nonviolent nature. As a result, a person who is caught getting money from another by threatening him with a knife is likely to get a more severe punishment as compared to one who defrauds a group of people of millions of dollars. This is because the law will base on the degree of violence to define its penalty (Friedrichs, 2007.
Public perception of white-collar crime
It has been generally believed that street crimes were taken as more serious by the public. Studies had pointed out that white-collar crimes, fraud to be particular were viewed to be less serious as compared to street crimes. However, this perspective by the public is gaining a new direction. The general public has started to view white-collar crimes as more serious as compared to street crimes. In a study by the National White Collar Crime Center, it was identified that the public viewed defrauding hundred dollars from an individual to be more serious than robbing the same amount of money through violent means. General findings pointed out that the public views white-collar crimes to be equally or more serious than street crimes (Rebovich & Kane, 2002).
One factor that has caused the change of attitude to this crime is the extend of injury of white-collar crimes as compared to street crimes. Just like robbery, white-collar crimes could be physically injurious to an individual. For example, selling dangerous drugs or goods to the public or knowingly polluting the environment could be equally dangerous as compared to physical robbery (Rebovich & Kane, 2002).
The effort by the media to highlight the seriousness of technology and the corresponding crimes has also contributed to society’s awareness of the seriousness of white-collar crimes. In addition, the effort by the government to come up with institutions to enforce and train white-collar crime control also helped the public realize the seriousness of the crime. This was also pointed out by the seriousness shown by the criminal justice system (Rebovich & Kane, 2002).
References
Freidrichs, D. (2007). Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in Contemporary Society, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson-Wadsworth Publishing.
Green, S. “The concept of white collar crime in law and legal theory.” Buffalo Criminal Law Review. 8(1) 2005: 1-34.
Rebovich, D. and Kane, J. “An eye for an eye in the electronic age: Gauging public attitude toward white collar crime and punishment.” Journal of Economic Crime Management. 1(2) 2002: 1-19.
Sutherland, E.H “White Collar Criminality,” American Sociological Review, 5 1940: 1-12.