Criminological Theories for White Collar Crimes - Coursework Example

Criminological Theories for White Collar Crimes School According to some studies and public opinion polls from among American, British,and Australian people, white-collar crimes have risen tremendously and created an impact to the public (Simpson, 2002). The said crime has developed and increased in the areas of business and even technology (Geis, 1991). After the scandals involving savings and loans during the 1980s, white collar crime persistently affected countries tremendously (Simon, 1996). This crime has also affected senior citizens or “those living on pensions,” working professionals and other people who have labored their entire lives in the hope of retiring someday, recipients of social security (Johnson, 2012). With the rise in the significant impact of white collar crimes, it is therefore important to understand what theories would help explain its prevalence in the business community. This paper then presents some of the theories that explain the reasons behind the commission of the said crimes. Upon research and evaluation of some significant studies, criminological theories point to distinct personalities of white collar offenders, the values and cultural influences, the centralized base structure, the legislative, judicial, and penal systems (Feeley, 2006) in treating less significantly these crimes, as the reasons for the commission of white collar crimes. With these findings, hopefully the community and the government authorities may find ways of returning to the basics of giving importance to integrity and ethical standards of doing business as well as crafting an effective regulation to curb the incidences of white collar crimes. The Various Theories for White Collar Crimes White collar crime has been defined as “the abuse of power by upper-echelon businessmen in the service of their corporations” (Geis, 1991). With this in mind, there are then two types of studies were found to explain for the reasons behind the commission of this white collar crime (Feeley, 2006). The first one centers on the impact of relationships, and the “situations, and social bonds” in a company (Alalehto, 2003). The second type utilizes on “biology, psychology, and the human personality” in order to find out what kind of behaviors or personalities strongly relates to white-collar offenders (Braithwaite, 1985). Personality is said to be “a persons ‘tendency to act or react in a certain way’ to different stimuli” (Alalehto, 2003). The personality traits reveal themselves in different forms conveyed “through social acts” which are easily measured and classified in science (Alalehto, 2003). “Interpersonal competitiveness” is a distinct personality associated to white-collar criminals (Terpstra et al., 1993). These personalities “cannot bear any form of loss and thrive on defeating their rivals” and rising to the top levels of the corporate world (Alalehto, 2003).  The so-called “positive extroverts” occupy themselves in the corporate competition that because of their motivation to win at any costs, defeats any ethical standards (Terpstra et al., 1993). An individual with an “ultra-competitive personality,” when positioned in a “competitive corporate setting,” changes into achiever who is “reckless, ambitious and egocentric” and who considers nothing except victory (Coleman, 2002 & Spencer 1965). The importance and preference for money by the American society according to Sociologist David Simon is related to enticement of “overly competitive, deviant-prone personalities” to go into the corporate life and search for success (Simon, 1996). Individuals with this personality in a white-collar environment, also do not often respect their colleagues and their work, but instead find power, money and other status representations as forms of gratification (Simon, 1996). Individuals with competitive and ego-driven personalities often show shrewdness and deception, concealing “their criminal compulsions behind a facade of hard work and dedication” (Collins & Griffin, 1998). It was also reported that white-collar offenders who are male are more aggressive and competitive than women, which findings are not really related to biology but more of a “traditional societal norms and sexual stereotypes” (Terpstra et al., 1993). Studies have also shown that there are three different personality traits that are related to economic crime (Alalehto, 2003). The first one is the “positive extrovert,” who illustrates a “talkative, spontaneous, alert, manipulative and egocentric” individual (Alalehto, 2003). The said individual also employs friendliness and exceptional social skills in order to obtain attention and would often choose lies and unpleasant gossips to achieve their goals (Alalehto, 2003). Persons possessing exceptional extroversion and little self-control are often aggressive, not easy to work with, and are probably apt to committing corporate crime than those extroverts who have self-control (Collins & Griffin, 1998). Individuals considered to be positive extroverts often engage in extracurricular activities like “clubs, sports, and charities” to create connections and abilities that points to “higher-level jobs” and giving rise to opportunities for corporate crimes (Collins & Schmidt, 1993). The second type is the so-called “disagreeable businessman,” who is the opposite of a “positive extrovert” (Alalehto, 2003). These individuals are resentful, aggressive, and disdainful to their colleagues, but desire “order, rules, and stability” and are upset or easily annoyed when others fail to abide by corporate customs (Alalehto, 2003). Because of their tenacious nature, these individuals lack the appeal for good management and would often get infuriated when things do not turn out as planned (Alalehto, 2003). These individuals are not as manipulative unlike positive extroverts whose ambition and greediness prevails over stiff rules and order (Alalehto, 2003). The third and final type of trait is the individual who is neurotic, lacking in confidence, sloppiness, and has full of anxiety (Alalehto, 2003). These individuals who are neurotics were found by some studies to be concealing an “external locus of control,” with little self-esteem and are highly susceptible to outside pressures (Terpstra et al., 1993). With little self-esteem, or minimal “ego strength,” these individuals have all the more have the propensity to do unethical acts (Terpstra et al., 1993). It is also very essential for these individuals to have employee feedback as well as acceptance, and are likely to commit crimes involving “vandalism and physical violence” (Collins & Griffin, 1998). Studies which associate age with that of white-collar crimes propose that individuals having neurotic personalities would likely have a number of criminal records with “white-collar and non-white-collar arrests” (Walters & Geyer, 2004 & Weisburd & Waring, 2001). The neurotic and positive extrovert individuals are the two types of personalities that are often associated with economic crimes (Alalehto, 2003). The characteristics describe above however, are not the only personalities which are likely to commit economic crime (Alalehto, 2003). White-collar crime was said to thrive in a structure and American culture influence that relates to the upper class of society (Sutherland, 2002). Corporate crime according to scholars, was also said to be a “learned” behavior instead of being instinctual for corporate criminals (Simon, 1996). Academicians have also studied cultural norms like religion (Terpstra et al., 1993), gender (Daly, 1989), and ethnicity (Croall, 2001) or if culture affects certain people to likely engage in corporate crime (Feeley, 2006). The influence of society that induces individuals in committing white-collar crimes, nevertheless still exist as the common reason for such offenses (Feeley, 2006). America promotes positively the corporate competition rather than as “a negative or selfish activity” being a capitalist country (Coleman, 2002). White collar crime becomes an incentive when there is foreign competition that comes into play and when profits fall (Simpson, 2002). Because of the notion that “winners” have the aim and drive to lead the opponent, this then infuses “a fear of failure” for executives and thus, leads them to conceal loss by doing a crime instead of being embarrassed by defeat (Coleman, 2002). Moreover, materialism and insecurity envelopes the corporate society, which predisposes corporate heads in committing white collar offenses (Coleman, 1987). With the “culture of competition” along with the motivation of money, this then operates as the “impersonal standard” for advantage and success in the economic society of America, generating pressure in realizing wealth and achievement (Coleman, 2002). Corporations which aim at attaining economic success in highly aggressive industries, search for profits and sometimes choose unlawfulness to survive especially when their expectations fall short (Vaughan, 1982). Oftentimes unlawfulness takes place when a business or company realizes a hurried success under a head who is “inexperienced and ‘unsocialized’” motivated by a belief that new organizations would rise speedily if they somehow disrespect the traditional standard of conducting business (Vaughan, 1982). The “size and complexity” of big corporations also creates more opportunities for the emergence of unlawful conduct (Vaughan, 1982). The prospects of committing a crime with minimal occasion of being detected, strongly entices normal individuals in engaging themselves in crime (Weisburd & Waring, 2001). Executive who hold “valuable nonpublic information” due to their positions, are often tempted to use the said information improperly (Szockyj & Gilbert Geis, 2002). The power centralized to the executives can also intimate the corporate members considered as “non-elite” to employ corporate malfeasance (Simon, 1996). This structure of having a centralized base could also preclude outsiders from knowing any corporate wrongdoing (Simon, 1996). For instance “former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski used his power to build a strong, ‘highly centralized structure’” in order to control the employees and stockholders’ knowledge of his” alleged mismanagement of corporate funds” (Bianco et al., 2002). Further, lenient governmental regulation and penalties which are ineffective permits the development of corporate crime and sends a notion that it is an insignificant problem to the government (Simon, 1996). White-collar offenders also fail to recognize that “fraud, tax evasion, or perjury” are cast in the same manner as other crimes like assault or murder (Green, 2004) oftentimes have difficulty in comprehending the divergence “between aggressive business tactics and illegal activity” (Green, 2004). Further these offenders own up to what they did but renounce criminal intent in their commission of the crime (Benson, 1985). They also defend such actions as mere “method of generating business and profits to keep their companies out of financial troubles” (Simon, 1996). The society also treats white collar crimes with less significance as opposed to other crimes (Feeley, 2006), as these crimes are usually hidden (Frank & Lynch, 1992) and hardly identified by the public (Green, 2004), due to the “lack of understanding” about the nature of these crimes (Rosenmerkel, 2001). “Legislative, judicial, and penal systems” treat white collar crimes and offenders less significantly (Tyler & Darley, 2001), with criminals serving relatively shorter prison sentences (Weisburd et al., 1995). Some of the government statutes permit white-collar crimes prosecutions to be prosecuted “under either civil or criminal penalties,” giving rise to an uncertainty “between white-collar crime and non-crime” (Green, 2004). With these various theories, it is important that the public, the business community and the government strive not only to promote knowledge regarding white collar crimes and its significant effect to the society but also find ways to stress on the importance of integrity and corporate social responsibility in conducting business. The government must also find effective means of deterring white collar crimes to lessen its chances of recurrence. Reference List Alalehto, T. (2003). Economic Crime: Does Personality Matter? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 335. Benson, M.L. (1985). Denying the Guilty Mind: Accounting for Involvement in a White-Collar Crime. Criminology 23, 583, 589. Bianco, A. et al., (2002). The Rise and Fall of Dennis Kozlowski. Business Week, 3813, 64, 75. Braithwaite, J. (1985). White Collar Crime. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 1. Coleman, J.W. (1987). Toward an Integrated Theory of White-Collar Crime. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 406, 435. Coleman, J.W. (2002). The Criminal Elite. New York: Worth Publishers. p. 185. Collins, J.M. & Griffin, R.W.(1998). The Psychology of Counterproductive Performance, in Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Non-Violent Dysfunctional Behavior. (R.W. Griffin et al. eds.). Stanford, Conn. [u.a.] : Jai Press. pp. 219, 226. Collins, J.M. & Schmidt, F.L.(1993). Personality, Integrity, and White-Collar Crime: A Construct Validity Study. Pers. Psychology, 46, 295, 308. Croall, H. (2001). Who is the White-Collar Criminal? Crimes of Privilege (Neal Shover ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 257, 263. Feeley, D. (2006). Personality, Environment, and the Causes of White-Collar Crime. Law & Psychology Review, 30, 201. Frank, N. & Lynch, M. J. (1992). Corporate Crime, Corporate Violence. New York: Harrow & Heston. pp. 1-4. Geis, G. (1991). White Collar Crime: What Is It? Current Issues Criminal Justice, Vol. 3, 9 & 11. Green, S.P. (2004). Moral Ambiguity in White Collar Criminal Law. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 18, 501, 502. Johnson, J.J. (2012). Fleecing Grandma: A Regulatory Ponzi Scheme. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 16, 993. Rosenmerkel, S. (2001). Wrongfulness and Harmfulness as Components of Seriousness of White-Collar Offenses. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17, 308, 323. Simon, D. R. (1996). Elite Deviance. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon, Inc. p. 50. Simpson, A. (2002). Corporate Crime, Law, and Social Control. New York: Cambridge University Press. Spencer, J. C. (1965). White Collar Crime. Criminology in Transition (E. Glover et al. eds.). London: Tavistock Publications Ltd. pp. 233, 259. Sutherland, E.H. (2002). White Collar Crime: Formulating the Concept and Providing Corporate Crime Baseline Data in Corporate and Governmental Deviance (M.D. Erman, et al., eds.). Corporate and Governmental Deviance. New York: Oxford University Press.Oxford University Press. p. 67. Szockyj, E. & Geis, G. (2002). Insider Trading Patterns and Analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 273, 276. Tyler, T. & Darley, J. (2001). Building a Law-Abiding Society: Taking Public Views about Morality and the Legitimacy of Legal Authorities into Account When Formulating Substantive Law. Hofstra Law Review 28, 707, 712. Terpstra, D.E. et al. (1993). The Influence of Personality and Demographic Variables on Ethical Decisions Related to Insider Trading. The Journal of Psychology, 127, 375, 384. Walters, G.D. & Geyer, M.D. (2004). Criminal Thinking and Identity in Male White-Collar Offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 263, 271. Weisburd, D. & Waring, E. (2001). White-Collar Crime and Criminal Careers. UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 31-36. Weisburd, D. et al., (1995). Specific Deterrence in a Sample of Offenders Convicted of White-Collar Crimes. Criminology, 33, 587, 600. Vaughan, D. (1982). Toward Understanding Unlawful Organizational Behavior. Michigan Law Review, 80, 1377, 1382. Read More