White Collar Crimes: Crimes of Professional Occupations

WHITE COLLAR CRIMES: CRIMES OF PROFESSIONAL OCCUPATIONS

A present day analysis of the term white collar crime is as controversial as it is general. One needs only look at the F.B.I. website to see a host of crimes ranging from health care fraud to computer crime amassed under the umbrella of white collar crime (www.fbi.gov). The term is widely used by both criminologists and sociologists alike, incorporating a mass of non-violent behaviors related to economic fraud. Beyond that rudimentary description there is widespread disagreement and interdisciplinary criticism of the definition and application of white collar crime. Criminologists, with a focus on the law, contend that many of the behaviors society believes to be white collar crimes are in fact not crimes at all. Without a statute to define a behavior as a criminal violation of law, behaviors could be labeled by individual standards rather than in the context of community value. An individual evaluation of what is or is not deviant allows for a subjective approach that softens the scientific objectivity of criminology (Tappan 1977). Additionally, the American system of criminal justice was built upon the premise of individual culpability. This presents difficulties when criminal acts involve a collective. The penalty phase of a criminal action was never meant to impose sanctions against groups or organizations. Sociologists contend the term itself is fundamentally flawed. Studies have shown the vast majority of white collar crimes are carried out by individuals comprising the middle and lower classes of society, without regard to the color of their collar (Croall 1989; Levi 1987; Weisburd 1991). Sociology views white collar crime not from a statutory or legal definition, but rather as a class distinction emphasizing the disparity between the treatment of the rich and the poor. In many cases the motivation leading to the commission of a white collar crime is directly related to socio-economic status. The definitional conflict between sociology and criminology has led to what has been termed "sterile definitional disputes" (Aubert 1977).

The current definition of white collar crime has come about due to a commingling of behaviors, variables, systems and theories. Unlike conventional crimes, white collar crime can be committed by an individual, a corporation, an occupation, or an organization (Croall 1992). The criminal element of intent has become less important as product liability and other corporate malfeasance have come to be identified as white collar crime. A questionable clustering of behaviors has resulted in an intermixing of simple deviations from societal norms, breaches of civil law, and criminal violations, thus blurring the line between civil and criminal law (Punch 1996). For the purpose of this paper, it is necessary to limit the scope of the term white collar crime. The genesis of the term is credited to Sociologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939 and simply states that white collar crime is the abuse of

power by an individual, situated in a high place, whereby virtue of that position they are provided with opportunities for such abuse. This paper will refer to crimes of professional occupations as a behavior having been statutorily defined as criminal, committed by an individual who has obtained a professional occupational position where the trust inherent to that position facilitates the commission of such crime. Professional will refer to occupational prestige rather than career criminality. This paper will attempt to offer an explanation as to why a professional practitioner may commit a criminal act facilitated by occupation after living a life of relative conformity to societal norms. Means, motive, and opportunity will be analyzed. Structural perspectives and learning theories of deviance will be applied to distinguish conventional and white collar crime.

In a 1939 meeting of the American Sociological Society, Edwin Sutherland proffered the term white collar criminal. He defined the white collar criminal as any person of high socio-economic status who commits a legal violation in the course of their business activities. Sutherland's definition emphasized the offender over the crime, and the role of trust and power in providing the means and opportunity to commit deviant acts (Sutherland 1940). For half a century since, Sutherland's definition of the white collar criminal has been the subject of much debate and controversy (Vold and Bernard 1986). Specific criticisms point out his use of arbitrary terms that cannot be quantified, such as "high socio-economic status", "respectable", and "business activities". It is widely considered throughout the sociological community, that Sutherland's 1939 definition of white collar crime was intended to draw attention to the idea of there being no difference between elite crime and street crime; as well as highlight the discrepancies in the application of law and justice between the rich and the poor. In subsequent writings, Sutherland clarified his use of high socio-economic status to include persons of the middle and upper classes (Sutherland 1949). Sutherland's elucidation had little to no effect in quelling the arguments related to his original work. A study based on the interviews of federal prisoners convicted of embezzlement concluded that although none of the subjects were poor, only a scant few could be considered as being of a high socio-economic status (Cressey 1953). Cressey's findings led to other criminologists questioning whether an offense such as embezzlement could even be considered white collar crime under the Sutherland definition (Green 1990). Even the term "business activity" was the subject of debate with Quinney theorizing the term should apply to all persons, in all occupations, without regard to socio-economic status (Quinney 1964). Quinney questioned whether a person cheating welfare would be committing a white collar crime because the welfare system is the source of their livelihood. Despite fifty years of debate and study, no consensus has been reached. Defining white collar crime is an enigma. A common misconception of white collar crime is that, like pornography, it is difficult to define, yet most people would recognize it when they saw it. The only fact regarding white collar crime is that no occupation is exempt or untouched by it (Geis, 2002). One need only pick up the paper, watch the news, or surf the Internet to accept the statement as an axiom. However, an occupation which society views as a profession may offer those individuals with the motivation to commit crime, as well as greater means and opportunity to accomplish complex schemes that are nearly undetectable to those operating outside the profession.

Sutherland's