• Applying material from item B evaluate sociological explanations of corporate crime (30)

Corporate crime refers to offences committed by large companies, the state, or individuals acting on behalf of those companies, which directly benefit the company rather than the individual. There are many different sociological explanations of corporate crime, ranging from the Marxist view to Merton’s strain theory. All perspectives must be evaluated before coming to a valid conclusion.

Merton’s strain or ‘anomie’ theory argued that crime and deviance originate from the frustration caused when some people cannot achieve society’s goals. It also states that there are means to achieve these goals and if people have no means to achieve these goals, they ‘innovate’ – commit crime to achieve these goals. Item B states that “corporate crime results from pressure to succeed […] by illegitimate means”. Box (1983) argues that if corporations cannot achieve their huge profits legitimately, they could turn to illegal methods to maximise profits. To add, Clinard and Yeager’s documentary (1980) on corporate crime found that more corporate crime was committed as the company’s financial situation deteriorated which is evidence for Box’s argument. However, as Nelken (2012) points out, Box overstates the amount of corporate crime is actually committed. It’s not realistic to argue that businesses would ‘innovate’ if it weren’t for the potential devastating consequences ready for them.

Sutherland (1982) highlighted that crime was not just a working-class phenomenon, but was more widespread. He focused on introducing white collar crime as a key theme, highlighting that most crimes of this nature go unnoticed and can be more “costly than street crimes” (Item B). He explains that corporate crime is learned through adoption of the normal practices of a company. He believes that much like crime is learned from the people around you, if you are working in a corporation where illegal activities are practices and are a way to achieve for the business, people will do it. Geis (1967) examined court evidence on price fixing in the USA, he found that if people entered a company where price-fixing was an established practice, they would routinely become involved in it as they learn their role. Furthermore, Matza argues individuals will be more likely to commit deviance if they can justify their behaviour. Therefore, corporate crime may occur because individuals may say they were just doing as they were told, that victims should have read the small print, or that everyone is doing it. Learning these techniques can be an important part of socialisation into a deviant corporate culture and therefore links with differential association. This is called ‘techniques of neutralisation’. A problem with this theory also comes from Braithwaite’s same study. He found that law abiding businesses might be more profitable as those that complied were more able to access lucrative markets in LEDC’s as the FDA will give them the license needed.

Marxists may argue that even though these corporations have loads of power, and dominance to avoid having their activities defined as illegal (control of law) they still break the law when it conflicts with their interests. Box (1983) points out that corporations have had a lot of success in promoting the idea that corporate crime is less harmful and less serious that a range of street crimes. He calls this “Mystification”. As shown in item B, we can see this in our own understanding of crime as we call ‘street crime’ “real crime”, but we don’t do the same for corporate crime. Frank Pearce (1976) looked at why there were so few prosecutions of corporate crimes, he found that if there were more it would undermine the wrong assumption that most crime is committed by the working classes. If the true extent of their crimes were known to the public, it would undermine the legitimacy of the bourgeoise or ruling class. However, Marxists don’t consider crime in non-profit agencies such as the police or army. Furthermore, communist regimes have been guilty of unimaginable crimes. This suggests that capitalism is not the main motivation.

Labelling theorists, such as Nelken, point out that powerful individuals/corporations employ accountants and lawyers to redefine their crimes as non-criminal. This is known as de-labelling or non-labelling. This can be done by reducing the seriousness of charges, for example, by hiring lawyers and accountants to even hide the damage they have caused. For example, breaking “other kinds of laws” (Item B) such as tax avoidance schemes. By avoiding the attachment of the label criminal, it may encourage further crimes by reducing the risk associated with offending. In addition, law enforcement is reluctant, or unable (due to lack of resources for example), to investigate these crimes. Croall (2007), provides an example of environmental crimes whereby dumping toxic waste, individuals could be poisoned and die, but because that wasn’t the intention of the crime, companies are often let off. Because of a low chance of acquiring a negative label, it only incites and promotes white-collar and corporate crimes. However, since the financial crash of 2008, corporate crime has become more and more visible as there are now whistle-blowers and journalists who are ready to expose illegal activity. This means that corporations no longer have control over how they are labelled.

Overall, although all theories provide valid explanations, there are also many criticisms of each perspective. Box’s application of strain theory is strong in that it explains how a corporation can experience strain which causes them to ‘innovate’ much like working-class criminals. However, every business faces financial strain. Most start-ups fail, and most businesses are in debt. This has been emphasised by modern economics. However, we don’t see an explosion in corporate crime. There are many gaps to strain theory that need to be answered. Marxists explain why corporate crime hasn’t exploded by showing how the state works with corporations to allow them to avoid breaking the law. However, Nelken (2002) pointed out that Marxists believe that corporate business have limited legal restrictions so they can maximise profits, but in reality, there are numerous restrictions in place. Sutherland’s theory is strong in that it explains why individuals commit crime within a company, whereas other perspectives take a more general or holistic approach. The problem is why don’t other individuals commit corporate crime? Not everyone at the board of directors agrees on committing corporate crime. Finally, the strongest approach is labelling theory. Despite the 2008 financial crash limiting corporations’ power to avoid labels, this wasn’t enough as corporations have grown even bigger through government subsidies and bail outs that were given during the 2008 crash. This also suggests that corporations work with the state to ‘de-label’ themselves, mitigating the effect whistle blowers and journalists have. In conclusion, it is clear that, despite labelling theory proving to be the most significant of the theories, there are still some gaps that need to be filled in by aspects of other theories such as Marxism.

  • Analyse two reasons why white-collar crime may be less likely to be reported to the police than crimes committed by working class people 10 marks

White collar crimes are committed by people of high social status and respectability in the course of their occupations (Sutherland, 1960). White collar crimes are divided into two parts. Firstly, occupational which are crimes committed at the expense of the organisations, and corporate crime, crimes committed on behalf on the organisations (for example the non-payment of VAT). Fraud only accounts for 6% of recorded crime but its monetary value is far greater than suggests e.g., WorldCom, the second largest long-distance telephone company in the USA, was forced to admit a $4 million hole in its account. These crimes do not enter police records because they are dealt with administratively by organisations such as the Inland Revenue. Although these crimes have a greater effect on people, such as having to pay more taxes, many cases of detected fraud never enter the police records (Maguire, 2002). This shows that police recorded crimes are significantly biased in under-representing corporate crimes while in monetary terms fraud is much more significant than other crimes. Furthermore, the police are more likely to concentrate on offenders from the least powerful sections of society (e.g., working class). Sampson (1986) found that the police tend to concentrate their patrols in poorer areas because of the belief that more crime takes place in such areas. Such police bias leads to the over-representation of powerless groups in official crime statistics. This shows that working class crimes are over-represented while white-collar and corporate crime are under-represented due to more attention given to working class crimes by the police.

Another reason as to why corporate and white-collar crime may be less likely to be reported to the police and prosecutors and crimes committed by working-class people is due to the fact these types of crimes are harder to detect; This suggests that many white-collar crimes of corporate crimes remain undetected. Croall argues this consist of lack of awareness that crime has been committed is because victims may not know that they are being misled. For example, in a 2013 food adulteration, one of the biggest food scandals of the 21st-century saw that horsemeat was found in burgers. From the trial for this case the judge had found that the company was also involved in the faking of documents, commissioning of bogus official stamps and passing off beef trimmings as higher quality meat. This example proves that victims do not always know they are victims, hence corporate and white-collar crime is less likely to be reported to the police and prosecuted. However, Croall also notes that even if they are caught, they may not be prosecuted anyway. In Bhopal, in 1984, an escape of poisonous gas from a chemical plant killed more than 3,000 people and caused permanent injury to a further 20,000. The escape of gas was caused by inadequate safety procedures of the plant. No criminal charges were brought against the company when it agreed to pay $470 million in compensation to victims and their families. This shows that although the effect of corporate crimes is huge, people are rarely prosecuted which may demoralise people from reporting in the first place as they feel they have no power. Why would someone go through the effort of reporting a corporation if they won’t even be prosecuted?

  • Analyse two explanations for the causes of crime put forward by the right realists 10 marks

Right realists view inadequate socialisation as a major cause of crime in “The Underclass”. Murray argues that the nuclear family is the best agency of socialisation as it involves learning self-control instils moral values of right and wrong aided by the complimentary roles which the mother and father embody. these are considered key in decreasing the likelihood of committing a crime and steering clear of offending as it provides structure, expectations, a higher self-esteem, and authority. However, Right realist highlight that lone parent mothers are ineffective socialisation agents for boys as the lack of paternal discipline and appropriate role model (the father), will lead young males to have delinquent, street role models. Instead of prioritizing education and maintaining a steady job, young males will seek status through crime. Thus, suggesting the lack of acceptable socialisation into society's norms and values can lead individuals to deviate as they have not learnt or understood the vital traits to co-exist in society but rather the traits for deviation. Murray states that often the cause of single parent households can be traced back to state policies such as the welfare state. Since the mother can rely on the state to provide child support, it creates a dependency culture which means men no longer need to take responsibility for supporting their family. Although, it must be acknowledged that the right realists focus on the 'ideal' nuclear family and their ability to provide adequate socialisation and ignore the possibility that nuclear families may consist of alcoholic or abusive parents who may not be able to socialize their children to prevent crime. Also, lone parent families shouldn't be isolated as the sole cause for crime as factors such as, social class and ethnicity may be more important.

Right realists use the rational choice theory to explain that crime is caused when individuals are rational actors with free will and see crime as feasible. Clarke argues that the decision to commit crime is choice based on rational calculation of the likely consequences committing a crime such as the potential rewards of the crime and if they outweigh the potential costs. If the agent sees the conditions are fit for crime, then they will act upon it. This suggests that the likelihood of individuals using their free will to commit a crime increases based on the ease of executing it. Felson used routine activity theory to elaborate. For crime to occur there must be a motivated offender, a target, and the absence of a “capable guardian” such as a police officer. Furthermore, right realists would argue that individuals are not deterred by punishment as they may be lenient compared to the crime. However, such an explanation tends to overlook that many crimes are committed for praise such as gang crime vandalism and theft. Also, it may be incompatible with other right realists’ beliefs that people are genetically predisposed to crime. If that was the case, how could they have made the rational decision?

Edit
Pub: 11 Jun 2022 02:02 UTC
Views: 83