Is street crime or suite crime more harmful?

Authors Avatar

DAMIAN MC KEOWN

CRIMINOLOGY

2002/2003

MODULE COORDINATOR

PADDY HILLYARD

ASSIGNMENT

Is street crime or suite crime more harmful?

Each time a newspaper is opened or a television is turned on, graphic stories of robbery, murder and mayhem appear. It is common crimes, like these, that fill the world with fear and that become the centre of attention. The focus on street crime creates the myth of the fear of crime and although crime statistics indicate that crime may be on the decrease, to residents of particular areas this decrease may not be so apparent. So with the saturation of the minds of those in society about the dangers of street crime, whether it be through media, television programmes, games or even toys, it is hardly surprising that street crime is viewed as more harmful than corporate crime. Wilson (1975) considers predatory street crime to be a far more serious matter than consumer fraud, anti trust violations …because predatory crime.makes difficult or impossible the maintenance of meaningful human communities.  The lack of focus on corporate crime adds to the myth that the young, economically disadvantaged male perpetrates the majority of crime and it is this type of crime that society fixates upon. It is understandable that the public are unaware or ignorant of the harm created by corporate crime, especially if the focus is on the more conventional street crime and they feel unaffected by the crimes committed by corporations. Box (1983) writes it is no wonder that corporate crime is not viewed by many people, including most criminologists as a pressing serious social problem. So to determine whether street crime or suite crime is more harmful, it is necessary to examine corporate and street crime and compare the nature and extent of the harm done.

Sutherland (1940) brought to the fore the notion of corporate crime and contributed to the understanding of how widespread and costly it is in economic terms. Although as Box (1983) points out that his concentration on the economic as opposed to the physical and social effects of corporate crime made his study too one sided. By general definition, a crime is a wronging, proclaimed by law against society. All acts of disobeying the law are crimes. Be it an assault or embezzlement one has committed a wrong. Yet as Box (1983) points out criminal law categories are designed to criminalize only some. Criminology and Criminal Justice focus on crimes on the streets and give passing mention to crimes in the suites, even though all the research indicates that corporate crimes cost far more than street crime There are annual reports on street crime from the police and the British Crime Survey and very little focus on corporate crime.  In relation to the fixation with street crime rather than suite crime it was observed by Fortune magazine (2002), this was after the Enron scandal, the double standard in criminal justice in this country (US) is starker and more embedded than many realize. Bob Dylan was right: Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and you’re likely to walk away with a lecture and a court-ordered promise not to do it again. So if corporate crime inflicts far more damage on society than all

Join now!

street crime combined what are the reasons for the fixation with street crime. One reason why corporate crime isn’t highlighted as much as street crime is because of the power and influence wielded by large corporations. Economically large corporations have enormous influence over countries and therefore it is not in the interests of countries to invest in research in the area of corporate crime. Snider (1998) The idea of corporate crime is one that is simply unappealing to business elites, she says. Ever since it was first invented by Edwin Sutherland, the concept of white collar crime, and specifically corporate ...

This is a preview of the whole essay