White Collar Crime Is A Form Of Structural Deviance

White Collar Crime Is A Form Of Structural Deviance That Impacts All O

White collar crime is a form of structural deviance that impacts all of us on a daily basis. Its significance is often overlooked by the public and the media. This paper discusses white-collar crime from a sociological perspective, defining key concepts, exploring the role of structural deviance, analyzing cases, and applying conflict theory.

Paper For Above instruction

White-collar crime, a term introduced by sociologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939, refers to financially motivated, non-violent crime committed by business and government professionals. These crimes are characterized by deceit, concealment, or violation of trust, typically occurring in the context of occupational roles. Examples include fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, and corporate misconduct. Corporate crime, a subset of white-collar crime, encompasses illegal acts committed by corporations or their representatives that harm the public, environment, or consumers, such as environmental violations or false advertising.

The concept of structural deviance describes societal conditions or institutions that foster deviant behaviors, often as a consequence of systemic inequalities and power imbalances. Structural deviance contributes to the relatively lenient punishments for white-collar and corporate criminals because these offenders often possess significant economic and political influence, enabling them to manipulate legal and regulatory systems. Their socio-economic power allows them to influence legislation, evade harsh penalties, and secure favorable treatment, which reinforces the cycle of structural deviance and criminality in the corporate sphere.

Several features characterize corporate crime, including the pursuit of profit at the expense of public safety, lax regulations, and the pursuit of liabilities reduction rather than ethical considerations. Corporate crimes often involve large-scale violations that impact thousands or millions of victims, with consequences ranging from financial loss to environmental destruction. The correlative features of corporate crime include deception, systemic organizational issues, and lack of accountability. These crimes are typically complex, involving multiple actors and layers of operational oversight, which complicate enforcement and prosecution.

Historically, notable cases exemplify white-collar and corporate crime. The Enron scandal (2001) involved executives engaging in accounting fraud to hide financial losses, leading to the company's collapse and substantial investor losses. The perpetrators faced criminal charges, but the sentencing and broader consequences remained limited compared to the scale of damage inflicted. Victims ranged from shareholders to employees who lost pensions and jobs. In the BP Deepwater Horizon spill (2010), corporate negligence resulted in one of the largest environmental disasters in US history. BP faced fines and damages, but critics argue that the penalties were insufficient given the environmental devastation and losses to local communities.

Another case is the Wells Fargo scandal (2016), where employees created millions of unauthorized accounts to meet sales targets, damaging customer trust and incurring regulatory penalties. The offenders faced internal disciplinary actions, but many faced no criminal charges, illustrating the often lenient legal consequences for white-collar offenders. These cases exemplify how corporate interests and influence hinder accountability and justice.

Applying conflict theory reveals that white-collar and corporate crimes fundamentally serve the interests of powerful economic elites at the expense of societal well-being. Conflict theory asserts that social structures and laws are designed to protect the privileges of the wealthy and suppress the underprivileged. The leniency and complexity of prosecuting corporate crime reflect the systemic bias that favors capital over labor and the public's interest. The influence wielded by corporations in shaping legislation and regulatory environments illustrates how structural deviance ensures that white-collar criminals frequently evade severe punishment, perpetuating inequality and social injustice.

In conclusion, white-collar crime exemplifies structural deviance driven by systemic inequalities and power dynamics. Its impacts are widespread and often devastating, yet enforcement remains insufficient due to the influence of powerful actors. By analyzing cases and applying conflict theory, it becomes evident that addressing white-collar crime requires structural reforms that promote accountability, transparency, and social justice across corporate and government sectors.

References

• Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White-collar crime. New York: Dryden Press.
• Greenberg, M. (2009). The ethics of corporate behavior. Cambridge University Press.
• Beirne, P., & messerschmidt, J. (2006). White collar crime. In M. J. Lynch & D. M. Farrington (Eds.), Handbook of Crime and Punishment (pp. 299-320). Oxford University Press.
• Friedrichs, D. O. (2010). Trusted criminal enterprises and white-collar crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(2), 171-182.
• Hagan, J. (1991). Who are the white-collar criminals?. Crime & Delinquency, 37(4), 517-532.
• Clarke, R. V. (2013). Situational crime prevention. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 739-763). Oxford University Press.
• Chambliss, W. J., & Seidman, R. (2014). Law, order, and power. Macmillan.
• Miner, M. H., & Scott, J. (2013). Corporate environmental crimes: The crisis of corporate social responsibility. Routledge.
• Harrison, T. (2011). The role of regulation in preventing corporate crime. Critical Criminology, 19(2), 139-154.
• Snider, L. (2019). Corporate crime, social harm, and the law. Crime, Media, Culture, 15(1), 31-45.