Essay Topics
Types of Essays
Essay Checklist
Word Counter
Readability Score
Essay Rewriter
White Collar crime is not a crime unto it self, but instead a criteria that has to be met in order for a crime to be considered as White- Collar Crime; (Blount, 2002) hence the reason why Corporate Crime is also considered as White- Collar Crime. At the same time, White Collar Crime and Corporate Crime can be seen as distinct criminological categories, however, in order to reveal this, this essay will firstly be exploring Sutherland's definition of white collar crime and the perplexity with this definition of white-collar crime. It will then be looking at the modification which had to take place with Sutherland's definition of white-collar crime in order to established a distinction between white-collar and corporate crime. Consequently, this essay will show in what ways and to what extent white collar crime and corporate crime are distinct criminological categories. Before Edwin Sutherland emerged with with the term white-collar crime, criminologist where only interested in crimes that were committed by lower class people; crimes of the powerless. These crimes includes, burglary, theft, vandalism as well as more serious crimes. Researchers also wanted to find out the reasons to why these individuals committed crimes. Their findings led them to concluded that it was due to pathologies of individual offenders, as well as poverty and deprivation. However, this was challenged by Sutherland who argued that people from upper social class are also involved in criminal behaviours. Though, their criminal behaviours are different from that of individuals from lower socio economic class. Croal, (2001). (the history) Considering that those from upper social class do not face the same challenges as those from lower socio economic class such as poverty and deprivation which are said to be reasons for lower class people committing crimes. Sutherland and other therefore offered theories to why people from upper social class committed crimes. The first theory by Sutherland was Differential Association Theory. This theory argues that a person or an organisation has been exposed to a mass number of normative influences that gives aid to offending than those that rejects it. Furthermore, criminal behaviour is learned, and when this behaviour is been taught, it entails techniques of committing the crime which at times can be complicated and other times quite simple; ' the specific direction of the motives, drives, rationalisation and attitudes.' (Newburn, 2013, pp. 394). Although this theory is rarely used when theorising white collar crime, it is nonetheless an important factor in many offending. For example, a study carried out by Geis of an electrical equipment company found that a lot of manufacture encouraged price fixing by their employee as a way of coping with market pressure. Geis pointed out that these activities was an established way of life where those that are involved learns attitudes and rationalisation that favour and support such misconduct. (Newburn, 2013). A second theory was given by Hirschi and Gottfredson, which is called the Self Control Theory. This theory focus on human nature and the significance of gratification. The central idea of this theory is that individuals peruse self interest and self gratification and the avoidance of pain. In regards to this theory crime is seen as a way in which individuals maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Furthermore, they argued that the differences that there are between those that chooses not to be involved in criminal activities and those that choose to be is due to the different weight they give, or the greater attachment they have to the feelings of others. The lack of attachment then could be seen in the following crimes: price fixing. embezzlement, environmental pollution or health and safety violation. (Newburn, 2013). (why people commit white-collar crime) Sutherland first coined the term White collar Crime in 1939. Sutherland defined White- Collar Crime as a 'crime committed by a person of responsibility and high social status in the course of his occupation.' (Sutherland, 1949). as cited in ( Payne, 2012, p.38). Sutherland definition however caused a lot of confusion, especially with the inclusion of social status of offender. Some argued whether it was necessary for social status to be included in his definition of offence. In Sutherland defence, he argued that the reason for including the social status of offenders in his definition of white-collar crime was to make a distinction between crimes committed by lower class people and crime committed by upper class people. (Croall, 1992). Still this posed a lot of problem for researchers in that, as an example, anyone can can commit fraud, (which is a type of white collar crime) for example the caretaker of a company. However, does this mean that researchers of this sphere should ignore this form of fraud, because it was not committed by an individual of a of a high social status. (Croal,1992) This was not the only confusion that Sutherland's definition caused. Sutherland studied crime committed by business people, hence his definition of white-collar crime. However he also studied corporations, in that event his analysis showed that he was more interested in organisational and Corporate Crime. Consequently, there were debates about whether Sutherland's definition of white-collar crime that focused only on the offender was an appropriate definition for corporate crime. Accordingly, critics argued that the concept of White-Collar Crime should be disregarded or redefined. The common consensus was that white-collar crime is a crime that is committed in legitimate employment and that involves the abuse of an occupational role. (Croall, 1992) and as a result occupational crime should be used instead. Similarly, in a bid to offer some clarification of Sutherland's definition of white collar crime, Clinard and Quinney decided to split white collar crime into two subcategories which were Occupational crime and Corporate Crime; the former is 'offences committed by individuals for themselves in the course of their occupations and the offences of employees against their employer'. (Croall, 1992, p.11). the latter is 'illegal corporate behaviour which is a form of collective rule breaking in order to achieve organisational goal'. (Croall ,992, p.11). An example of Corporate crime is the 1989 supertanker Exxon Valdez case. This cases involved millions of gallon of oil being spilt in the waters of Prince William Sound, Alaska. According to reports, many oil company knew of the danger of negativing mass amount of oil through this region due to the icy and unsafe waters thus, being aware of this oil companies pledge to use care in order to ovoid oil spill. However, Exxon went against their promise and allowed Captain Hazelwood a repeat alcoholic to operate the supertanker. They knew of his repeated relapse and failed do anything about it. The evening before the incident Hazelwood apparently consumed 'between 5 and 9 double shots (15 to 27 ounces of 80 proof alcohol) before boarding the ship'. He was the only one that was in charged to steer the ship however, due to the drunken state that he was in he allowed one of the other members on the ship to steer the ship. The result of this was 11 million gallon of crude oil that polluted hundred of miles of coastline. You can read the detail in the The Whole Truth: History of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.(History of the Spill). The sanctions that applies to Occupational crime and Corporate crime in practice are distinct, similarly to the process of prosecution. According to (Croall,2001) the benefits from committing Occupational crime is more instant, as well as the issue of intent is more direct, which means that occupational crime conforms more 'to the stereotype and social construction of crime' (Croall,2001, p.386). where as with corporate crime not so much,and because of this organisational can and seen to be less more criminal than those committed by individuals, in addition the offence to victim is less direct. This then leads to difference in how each offences are managed. With corporate crime it is difficult to know who the culprit is, take for example the Exxon case, was it the Captain that was at fault or was it Exxon who knew of his repeated relapse but choose to do nothing about it? Furthermore, when it comes to prosecuting a corporation, it is more difficult compare to Occupational crime. The reason for this is because a corporation is seen as a 'legal person which can sue and be sued in its own name.' (Slapper, et al. 1999, p.197). Therefore, on the grounds of 'mens rea' this makes it difficult to prosecute against a cooperation, because a corporation does not have a 'soul'. According to Edward Coke, an act does not make someone guilty unless their mind is guilty. Coke, E. (2014) Criminal Justice Process, Birckbeck University, unpublished. Lastly, unlike Occupational crime, corporate victimises individuals. Employee working for an organisation can be injured or even killed due to lack of health and safety regulations within a company. They can also fall ill due to the toxic environment which they work in. (Croall, 1992) Nevertheless occupational crime and corporate crime share an essential characteristic which is that they both originated in occupational position. (Croall,1992) To conclude, Sutherland's definition posed a lot of confusion when it comes to understanding white-collar crime. This confusion caused difficulties for researchers of this topic as well as the average person. It could be argued that Sutherland's definition of white collar crime is one that is no longer used today due to it being insufficient. Regardless, Sutherland was able to draw attention to the fact that it is not only people form lower economic status that commit crimes, he also paved the way for others to research in an area of crime that was usually overlooked. Furthermore, the extent to which which 'classic' white collar crime and corporate crime are distinct is limited, in fact we see that white collar crime is not a crime unto itself but instead act as a subheading for different form of crimes and so because of this, white collar crime and corporate crime inevitably falls under the same criminological category. Both crimes overlaps in that in order for a corporation to exist there must be individuals who are running it. Therefore any offence that is committed by a corporation, in actually is being committed by individual/s in the course of their occupation.
Essay Writing Checklist
The following guidelines are designed to give students a checklist to use, whether they are revising individually or as part of a peer review team.
Introduction
  • Is the main idea (i.e., the writer's opinion of the story title) stated clearly?
  • Is the introductory paragraph interesting? Does it make the reader want to keep on reading?
Body Paragraph
  • Does each body paragraph have a clear topic sentence that is related to the main idea of the essay?
  • Does each body paragraph include specific information from the text(including quoted evidence from the text, if required by the instructor)that supports the topic sentence?
  • Is there a clear plan for the order of the body paragraphs (i.e., order of importance, chronology in the story, etc.)?
  • Does each body paragraph transition smoothly to the next?
Conclusion
  • Is the main idea of the essay restated in different words?
  • Are the supporting ideas summarized succinctly and clearly?
  • Is the concluding paragraph interesting? Does it leave an impression on the reader?
Overall Essay
  • Is any important material left unsaid?
  • Is any material repetitious and unnecessary?
  • Has the writer tried to incorporate "voice" in the essay so that it has his/her distinctive mark?
  • Are there changes needed in word choice, sentence length and structure, etc.?
  • Are the quotations (if required) properly cited?
  • Has the essay been proofread for spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc.?
  • Does the essay have an interesting and appropriate title?
Corporate Crime vs White Collar Crime
Trending Essay Topics
Explore today's trending essay topics:
Reference
Feel free to use content on this page for your website, blog or paper we only ask that you reference content back to us. Use the following code to link this page:
Terms · Privacy · Contact
Essay Topics © 2020

Corporate Crime Vs White Collar Crime

Words: 1701    Pages: 6    Paragraphs: 9    Sentences: 91    Read Time: 06:11
Highlight Text to add correction. Use an editor to spell check essay.
              White Collar crime is not a crime unto it self, but instead a criteria that has to be met in order for a crime to be considered as White- Collar Crime; (Blount, 2002) hence the reason why Corporate Crime is also considered as White- Collar Crime. At the same time, White Collar Crime and Corporate Crime can be seen as distinct criminological categories, however, in order to reveal this, this essay will firstly be exploring Sutherland's definition of white collar crime and the perplexity with this definition of white-collar crime. It will then be looking at the modification which had to take place with Sutherland's definition of white-collar crime in order to established a distinction between white-collar and corporate crime. Consequently, this essay will show in what ways and to what extent white collar crime and corporate crime are distinct criminological categories.
             
              Before Edwin Sutherland emerged with with the term white-collar crime, criminologist where only interested in crimes that were committed by lower class people; crimes of the powerless. These crimes includes, burglary, theft, vandalism as well as more serious crimes. Researchers also wanted to find out the reasons to why these individuals committed crimes. Their findings led them to concluded that it was due to pathologies of individual offenders, as well as poverty and deprivation. However, this was challenged by Sutherland who argued that people from upper social class are also involved in criminal behaviours. Though, their criminal behaviours are different from that of individuals from lower socio economic class. Croal, (2001). (the history)
             
              Considering that those from upper social class do not face the same challenges as those from lower socio economic class such as poverty and deprivation which are said to be reasons for lower class people committing crimes. Sutherland and other therefore offered theories to why people from upper social class committed crimes. The first theory by Sutherland was Differential Association Theory. This theory argues that a person or an organisation has been exposed to a mass number of normative influences that gives aid to offending than those that rejects it. Furthermore, criminal behaviour is learned, and when this behaviour is been taught, it entails techniques of committing the crime which at times can be complicated and other times quite simple; ' the specific direction of the motives, drives, rationalisation and attitudes. ' (Newburn, 2013, pp. 394). Although this theory is rarely used when theorising white collar crime, it is nonetheless an important factor in many offending. For example, a study carried out by Geis of an electrical equipment company found that a lot of manufacture encouraged price fixing by their employee as a way of coping with market pressure. Geis pointed out that these activities was an established way of life where those that are involved learns attitudes and rationalisation that favour and support such misconduct. (Newburn, 2013). A second theory was given by Hirschi and Gottfredson, which is called the Self Control Theory. This theory focus on human nature and the significance of gratification. The central idea of this theory is that individuals peruse self interest and self gratification and the avoidance of pain. In regards to this theory crime is seen as a way in which individuals maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Furthermore, they argued that the differences that there are between those that chooses not to be involved in criminal activities and those that choose to be is due to the different weight they give, or the greater attachment they have to the feelings of others. The lack of attachment then could be seen in the following crimes: price fixing. embezzlement, environmental pollution or health and safety violation. (Newburn, 2013). (why people commit white-collar crime)
             
              Sutherland first coined the term White collar Crime in 1939. Sutherland defined White- Collar Crime as a 'crime committed by a person of responsibility and high social status in the course of his occupation. ' (Sutherland, 1949). as cited in ( Payne, 2012, p. 38). Sutherland definition however caused a lot of confusion, especially with the inclusion of social status of offender. Some argued whether it was necessary for social status to be included in his definition of offence. In Sutherland defence, he argued that the reason for including the social status of offenders in his definition of white-collar crime was to make a distinction between crimes committed by lower class people and crime committed by upper class people. (Croall, 1992). Still this posed a lot of problem for researchers in that, as an example, anyone can can commit fraud, (which is a type of white collar crime) for example the caretaker of a company. However, does this mean that researchers of this sphere should ignore this form of fraud, because it was not committed by an individual of a of a high social status. (Croal,1992) This was not the only confusion that Sutherland's definition caused. Sutherland studied crime committed by business people, hence his definition of white-collar crime. However he also studied corporations, in that event his analysis showed that he was more interested in organisational and Corporate Crime. Consequently, there were debates about whether Sutherland's definition of white-collar crime that focused only on the offender was an appropriate definition for corporate crime.
             
              Accordingly, critics argued that the concept of White-Collar Crime should be disregarded or redefined. The common consensus was that white-collar crime is a crime that is committed in legitimate employment and that involves the abuse of an occupational role. (Croall, 1992) and as a result occupational crime should be used instead. Similarly, in a bid to offer some clarification of Sutherland's definition of white collar crime, Clinard and Quinney decided to split white collar crime into two subcategories which were Occupational crime and Corporate Crime; the former is 'offences committed by individuals for themselves in the course of their occupations and the offences of employees against their employer'. (Croall, 1992, p. 11). the latter is 'illegal corporate behaviour which is a form of collective rule breaking in order to achieve organisational goal'. (Croall ,992, p. 11).
             
              An example of Corporate crime is the 1989 supertanker Exxon Valdez case. This cases involved millions of gallon of oil being spilt in the waters of Prince William Sound, Alaska. According to reports, many oil company knew of the danger of negativing mass amount of oil through this region due to the icy and unsafe waters thus, being aware of this oil companies pledge to use care in order to ovoid oil spill. However, Exxon went against their promise and allowed Captain Hazelwood a repeat alcoholic to operate the supertanker. They knew of his repeated relapse and failed do anything about it. The evening before the incident Hazelwood apparently consumed 'between 5 and 9 double shots (15 to 27 ounces of 80 proof alcohol) before boarding the ship'. He was the only one that was in charged to steer the ship however, due to the drunken state that he was in he allowed one of the other members on the ship to steer the ship. The result of this was 11 million gallon of crude oil that polluted hundred of miles of coastline. You can read the detail in the The Whole Truth: History of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. (History of the Spill).
             
              The sanctions that applies to Occupational crime and Corporate crime in practice are distinct, similarly to the process of prosecution. According to (Croall,2001) the benefits from committing Occupational crime is more instant, as well as the issue of intent is more direct, which means that occupational crime conforms more 'to the stereotype and social construction of crime' (Croall,2001, p. 386). where as with corporate crime not so much,and because of this organisational can and seen to be less more criminal than those committed by individuals, in addition the offence to victim is less direct. This then leads to difference in how each offences are managed. With corporate crime it is difficult to know who the culprit is, take for example the Exxon case, was it the Captain that was at fault or was it Exxon who knew of his repeated relapse but choose to do nothing about it?
             
              Furthermore, when it comes to prosecuting a corporation, it is more difficult compare to Occupational crime. The reason for this is because a corporation is seen as a 'legal person which can sue and be sued in its own name. ' (Slapper, et al. 1999, p. 197). Therefore, on the grounds of 'mens rea' this makes it difficult to prosecute against a cooperation, because a corporation does not have a 'soul'. According to Edward Coke, an act does not make someone guilty unless their mind is guilty. Coke, E. (2014) Criminal Justice Process, Birckbeck University, unpublished. Lastly, unlike Occupational crime, corporate victimises individuals. Employee working for an organisation can be injured or even killed due to lack of health and safety regulations within a company. They can also fall ill due to the toxic environment which they work in. (Croall, 1992) Nevertheless occupational crime and corporate crime share an essential characteristic which is that they both originated in occupational position. (Croall,1992)
             
             
              To conclude, Sutherland's definition posed a lot of confusion when it comes to understanding white-collar crime. This confusion caused difficulties for researchers of this topic as well as the average person. It could be argued that Sutherland's definition of white collar crime is one that is no longer used today due to it being insufficient. Regardless, Sutherland was able to draw attention to the fact that it is not only people form lower economic status that commit crimes, he also paved the way for others to research in an area of crime that was usually overlooked. Furthermore, the extent to which which 'classic' white collar crime and corporate crime are distinct is limited, in fact we see that white collar crime is not a crime unto itself but instead act as a subheading for different form of crimes and so because of this, white collar crime and corporate crime inevitably falls under the same criminological category. Both crimes overlaps in that in order for a corporation to exist there must be individuals who are running it. Therefore any offence that is committed by a corporation, in actually is being committed by individual/s in the course of their occupation.
Crime Essay Compare And Contrast Essay 
Blount, E. (2002) Occupational Crime: Deterrence, Investigation and Reporting in Compliance with Federal Guidelines [online]. Usa: Crc Press. [Accessed 10 Feburary 2014].

Croall, H. (1992) White Collar Crime. UK: Open Univ Pr.

Newburn, T. (2013) Criminology. 2nd ed. 2 Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon Ox14 4rn: Routledge

The Whole Truth Prince William Sound, Alaska (2008) The Whole Truth: History of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Available from: http://www.wholetruth.net/history.htm [Accessed11Feburary 2014]

Coke, L (2014) Criminal Justice Process [online]. Available from: http://moodle.bbk.ac.uk/mod/folder/view.php?id=140647 [Accessed 08 March 2014].
Tip: Use our Essay Rewriter to rewrite this essay and remove plagiarism.

Add Notes

Have suggestions, comments or ideas? Please share below. Don't forget to tag a friend or classmate.
clear
Formatting Help
Submit