Is "greed" the explanation for both professional and corporate crime? If not, what else do we have to consider? Can we apply traditional criminological theories to our understanding of white-collar crime?

Authors Avatar

Criminology

Crime In Context

Is ‘Greed’ the explanation for both professional and corporate crime? If not, what else do we have to consider? Can we apply traditional criminological theories to our understanding of white-collar crime?

1st March 2006

Samantha Harsant

Is “greed” the explanation for both professional and corporate crime?  If not, what else do we have to consider?  Can we apply traditional criminological theories to our understanding of white-collar crime?

In 1939 Edwin Sutherland first brought white-collar crime to the forefront of the criminological study.  He first coined the term white-collar crime for crimes specifically performed by those in high positions in both society and in business.  These were those classed as white-collar employees and included crimes such as fraud, bribery, insider trading, embezzlement, computer crime and forgery.  Sutherland’s definition of crime states that the white-collar crime is committed by a person of high status and is committed in their place of work.  Sutherland conducted a great deal of research into white-collar crime, including “white-collar criminality (1940)” and “white-collar crime (1949), all of which is still highly regarded today and seen by some as controversial.

Many criminological theories suggest that an individuals motive for committing crimes are due to class and suggest that the lower classes commit crime in an attempt to better themselves or to simply survive. However, theories with this general overview cannot explain why it is that people who are already in positions of high status and are generally “well off” for money would risk it all to commit white-collar crime.  Clinard and Yeager agree or at least suggest that greed is the explanation for most professional and corporate cries but although I can understand why they may believe this to be the case I can not completely agree with them.  I can acknowledge that some middle-class single employees may see the opportunity to gain financially with a low possibility of being caught but for those middle-class, married employees who are perhaps parents and have more to lose and yet still commit white-collar crime; I can not believe that greed is the only motivation.  Greed does simply not seem enough of a reason to take such a risk.  I have come to my own realisation that white-collar crime is very much driven by opportunity.  The opportunity to commit professional and corporate crime would be present virtually every working day in the cases of some employees and with the limited risk of being caught out the fact that the opportunity is there may be too much for some employees to step away from.  Due to the revolution of the opportunity explanation for white-collar crime, most general traditional criminological theories can not be applied.  Traditional theories aim to explain criminality as a whole but white-collar crime in my opinion has to remain completely separate from other crimes that are more widely recognised, such as theft, rape and even more minor offences such as speeding. These are seen to be crimes that can be committed by anyone from any class, this is not the case with white-collar crime however.  Due to the opportunity aspect, you would have to work within an organisation of the white-collar variety, therefore instantly acknowledging employees as middle or upper-class.  White-collar crime is generally not committed by the lower working class as it is more difficult for individuals of such class to breakthrough into the generally middle class jobs.  I believe that what separates the lower class criminal from the upper class criminal is opportunity; the opportunities that upper classes get to commit such crimes as white-collar is more ample than that of the lower classes.  However, greed does adjoin them as to some degree; greed always plays a part in gaining financially as a result of crime.  

Join now!

Sutherland had many other theories that can be tied into white-collar crime and one that can be used to help explain why people commit this form of crime is his differential association theory.  Sutherland explained that this is when deviants and criminals learn the techniques and attitudes needed to commit the crime through interpersonal interaction with others, he fashioned the differential association theory as he was dissatisfied with the conventional explanations of crime around at the time.  The theory also states that people commit white-collar crime when they are exposed to more values favourable to the commission of crime ...

This is a preview of the whole essay