Final Paper Preparation Outline

vixen1004

socialclassch3.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Final Paper Preparation Outline

3Social Class and Crime

Louis Lanzano/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to

• Define the key concepts inequality, stratification, and life chances.

• Examine how stratification relates to crime.

• Critically analyze the role of social class in the criminal justice system.

• Discuss the disparity versus discrimination debate.

• Identify key elements of white-collar crime and its impact on society.

Section 3.1 Stratification in America

Bernard Madoff is one of the most notorious criminals in American history. In 2009 Madoff was charged with violating the Securities Act of 1993, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 after creating a large and elaborate Ponzi scheme. The Ponzi scheme was originally named after Charles Ponzi, who defrauded thousands of residents in the New England area in the 1920s. Ponzi schemes are a type of fraud that contin- ually creates the illusion of a profitable investment. They usually promise high returns with little risk. Investors who unknowingly buy into a Ponzi scheme are given a handsome return on their money. However, these returns are not based on profit. Rather, older investors are paid using money from newer investors. Ponzi schemes depend on the continual recruitment of new investors in order to continue to create this illusion of a profitable investment. Eventu- ally, the Ponzi scheme collapses when new investors can no longer be recruited or when too many investors want to cash out.

Unlike most Ponzi schemers, Madoff did not promise big returns in a short time. He promised moderate, stable returns over a long time. Investors were provided with quarterly reports that demonstrated moderate returns even when the market was turbulent and fluctuating. Madoff was a well-known and respected member of the securities industry for many years. He was vice president of the National Association of Securities Dealers and a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation stock markets board of gov- ernors. He served as executive chair of its trading committee. Madoff defrauded thousands of consumers and organizations in one of the most intricate financial schemes of our time. On June 29, 2009, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison. His plot is believed to have cost consumers $65 billion dollars.

3.1 Stratification in America The United States is a nation that makes profound promises about equality and freedom. Many of America’s most important founding documents declare that equality and fair treat- ment under the law are cornerstones of our society. For example, the Declaration of Indepen- dence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” How- ever, compared to other industrialized democracies, America experiences very high levels of inequality and poverty, both of which contribute to crime. Understanding the complex rela- tionship between social class and crime necessitates an understanding of the various ways that social class and inequality can be measured and conceptualized.

Measures of Social Class and Inequality Social class refers to a group with a similar level of economic and social status, especially income, wealth, and power. It is important to understand that social class is in part about wealth and income but also about social status, social influence, and social networks. Classic sociological theorist Max Weber (1864–1920) argued that social class is a broad and encom- passing concept that involves social prestige and influence; this social prestige and influence may or may not be directly related to economic status. Weber coined the term life chances, which is a more broad and inclusive measure of social class. Life chances refer to “access to basic opportunities and resources in the marketplace . . . that defined an individual’s class position within the larger society” (Bryjak & Soroka, 1997, p. 152). Life chances refer to an individual’s current economic standing as well as an individual’s likelihood of becoming

Section 3.1 Stratification in America

economically powerful in the future. Life chances reflect one’s position in informal and formal social networks as a predictor of future economic success.

Social scientists measure differences between social classes in several ways. Depending on the study, research question, and data available, social scientists may want to examine differences between social classes at a single point in time or over a long period. Social inequality refers to the unequal distribution of power, goods, and services between individuals or groups at a given moment. In contrast, social stratification refers to “structured inequalities between groups” (Giddens, 2011, p. 181) that have become long standing and relatively permanent. Understanding the differences between inequality and stratification is very important when examining different groups in society by race, class, geography, religion, age, sexual orientation, and gender. Moreover, inequality and stratification are important features of modern America.

Stratification in America: Empirical Overview The United States is one of the most unequal industrial democracies. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimates, in 2018 the poverty rate in the United States was at 11.8%. This means that in 2018, approximately 38.1 million people in America were living below the pov- erty line, determined by a benchmark of a family of four (two adults and two children) living on less than $25,465 per year. This 11.8% poverty rate is the lowest it has been since 2007, a year before the Great Recession in America (Semega et al., 2019; see Figure 3.1). The United States has one of the highest poverty rates compared to other major industrialized nations (Confronting Poverty, 2019).

Figure 3.1: Number in poverty and poverty rate, 1959–2018

From 1959 to 2018, both the total number of people in America living in poverty and the poverty rate have varied significantly.

From Current Population Survey: 1960 to 2019 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, by U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2019/demo/p60-266/Figure7.pdf ).

45 50

40 35 30 25 20

25 20 15 10 5 0 1959 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2018

Percent

Numbers in millions Recession

Numbers in poverty 38.1 million

11.8 percent

Poverty rate

Section 3.1 Stratification in America

In America, the extent of inequality and stratification varies considerably by gender, race, and geography (see Figure 3.2). Women and female-headed households are consistently more likely to be in poverty compared to men and male-headed households (Semega et al., 2019). In addition, among the racial groups measured, non-Hispanic Whites were least likely to be living in poverty, at 8.1%. Asians were slightly more likely to be living in poverty, at 10.1%. And Hispanics and Blacks suffer disproportionately from poverty, at 17.6% and 20.8%, respectively. Poverty, inequality, and stratification are critical to understanding the origins and consequences of criminal behavior.

Figure 3.2: Poverty rate by state, 2020

Adapted from Poverty Rate by State 2020, by World Population Review, 2020 (http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/poverty -rate-by-state).

10%

13% 10%

11% 8%11%

14% 14%

13% 11%

13%

10%

11%

11% 14%

14%14% 11%

12%

16% 15%

15%

11%

20%16%

11%

15%

19% 20%

16%

14%

13%

14%

17%

10%

11%

13%

14%

Stratification, Crime, and Punishment The relationship between crime and social class is complex. For centuries, criminologists have attempted to flush out the multiplicity of ways that poverty, social class, and social loca- tion (a combination of one’s gender, race, social class, age, ability, religion, sexual orientation, and geographic location) contribute to crime perpetration and crime victimization. In addi- tion, social class contributes to the likelihood of apprehension by police and punishment by the criminal justice system. Social disorganization theory, a very influential perspective in modern criminology (see Chapter 1), argues that conditions of disadvantage within neigh- borhoods create crime. According to this perspective, poverty, dilapidated housing, a lack of social services, high residential turnover, and poor education and economic opportunities create an environment that breeds criminal behavior. It seems intuitive that certain types of crime, such as drug dealing or petty theft, may increase out of economic necessity. However,

Section 3.1 Stratification in America

the relationship between poverty and crime is far from clear, as articulated by Jeffrey Reiman, a professor of philosophy and criminology and author of the influential book The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison.

We know that poverty, slums, and unemployment are sources of street crime. We know that they breed alienation from social institutions, and that they reduce the likely rewards of going straight. But, we do not fully understand how they cause crime, because we know as well that many, if not most, poor, unemployed slum dwellers do not engage in street crime. (Reiman, 2007, p. 29)

Moreover, evidence abounds that a significant amount of crime is perpetrated by the mid- dle and upper classes of society. There is a legacy of studies of white-collar crime (Berger, 2011). Moreover, studies of affluent drug dealers (Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010) challenge the assumption that drug dealing is a crime chosen only by the financially desperate. And influential perspectives in criminological theory argue that crime is caused by the innate thrill of breaking the rules (Katz, 1988), irrespective of social position and location. In addi- tion, recall that self-report data and victimization surveys consistently show a higher rate of criminality by middle- and upper-middle-class populations compared to the Uniform Crime Report (see Chapter 1). While the relationship between social class and crime perpetration is not entirely clear, there is a clear relationship between social class and punishment by the criminal justice system.

Web Field Trip: Class-Based Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System

Visit the webpage of Dr. Paul Leighton, focused on class-based inequalities in the criminal justice system: http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/RichGetRicher/Fraud2004/TaleOf2Crim inals.htm. Read the section dedicated to the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case Rummel v. Estelle.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. In the case of Rummel v. Estelle, did the punishment fit the crime? 2. What, if anything, does this Supreme Court case contribute to our understanding of

social class and crime?

The contemporary American criminal justice system disproportionately impacts the poor and other marginalized groups. Randall Shelden (2010), a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, calls jails in contemporary America “temporary housing for the poor” (p. 57). Moreover, before being incarcerated, prison inmates also suffer dis- proportionately from poverty (Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010). Our incarcerated population is much lower on the socioeconomic hierarchy compared to our general population. In part, this overrepresentation of the poor can be attributed to law enforcement procedures that make disadvantaged groups more likely to be caught for criminal behavior and more likely to be punished harshly by the criminal justice system.

http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/RichGetRicher/Fraud2004/TaleOf2Criminals.htm

Section 3.1 Stratification in America

Shaping Criminology: The Seductions of Crime The bulk of criminological theories about the origins of crime have focused on the possible material rewards for criminal behavior: the money, the drugs, the stolen goods. In 1988 Jack Katz, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, crafted a theory of crime centered on the nonmaterial benefits of doing crime. In his book Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil, Katz argues that human beings derive a psycho- logical, physiological, and even sensual pleasure from breaking the rules. Simply put, crime feels good. According to Katz, crime is far less rational and far less goal oriented than many assume. The thrill of committing criminal acts, taking risks and potentially getting away with it, is inherently attractive. Katz (1988) famously notes that “it is not the taste for the pizza that leads to the crime; the crime makes the pizza tasty” (p. 52). Initially, this “sneaky thrills” per- spective on crime seems applicable to crimes such as drug use, drag racing, and spontaneous assault. However, Katz argues that the seductions of crime are applicable to a wide variety of crimes: violent and nonviolent, minor and severe. Katz (1988) writes,

The social science literature contains only scattered evidence of what it means, feels, sounds, tastes, or looks like to commit a particular crime. Readers of research on homicide and assault do not hear the slaps and curses, see the pushes and shoves, or feel the humiliation and rage that may build toward the attack, sometimes persisting after the victim’s death. How adolescents manage to make the shoplifting or vandal- ism of cheap and commonplace things a thrilling experience has not been intriguing to many students of delinquency. Neither academic methods nor academic theories seem to be able to grasp why such killers . . . kill when only petty cash is at stake. (p. 3)

This vivid narrative is part of Katz’s larger argument that the nitty-gritty aspects of crimi- nal behavior often defy rationality. Crimes are often more spontaneous than the cost–benefit assumptions of deterrence theory suggest. According to Katz, crime often provides the crimi- nal a sensual benefit that is typically more important than any material or tangible rewards.

Katz uses a series of empirical cases to support the core claims of the sneaky thrills perspec- tive on crime. He points out that the typical profit from a burglary or robbery is about $80 per criminal event. Moreover, a relatively small number of frequent, repeat offenders commit the vast majority of burglaries and robberies. These repeat offenders are caught and punished relatively frequently by the criminal justice system. Thus, he argues, a simple cost–benefit analysis cannot be the entire motivation for these criminals. To support this claim, Katz quotes John Allen, a Washington, DC, man who makes his living committing armed robbery. Armed robbery is a particularly dangerous and risky type of crime that can result in severe criminal penalties. Allen explains:

For a man, pimping is a good way of making money, but the fastest way is narcotics, and the safest and best way of all is numbers. Even though my whores were making a lot of money, I just didn’t like pimping that much. It ain’t my style. . . . I missed stickup quite a bit. . . . What I really missed was the excitement of sticking up and the planning and the getting away with it. (as cited in Frank, 1989, p. 1)

Allen seems seduced by the “moral and sensual attractions in doing evil” and offers a case that supports Katz’s core conclusions empirically.

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class The American criminal justice system disproportionately impacts traditionally marginalized individuals and groups. Individuals lower on the social class hierarchy are more likely to be under the control of the correctional system: in jails, in prisons, on probation, or on parole. As discussed in Chapter 2, overrepresentation of the poor and people of color has been a long- standing and fairly consistent feature of the American criminal justice system (Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010; Shelden, 2010). Thus, one of the most important questions in criminology is why (Currie, 1998)? Why are individuals with less wealth, less social capital, and lower incomes more likely to end up in the criminal justice system?

Criminologists explore the relationship between social class and crime by critically examin- ing two possible hypotheses: disparity and discrimination. There are two possible reasons why those of lower social class are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. One, it is possible that those of lower class commit more crime. Maybe higher rates of offending, or disparities in crime rates, account for the overrepresentation of lower class groups in the cor- rectional system. Two, it is possible that those in the lower class are overrepresented in the criminal justice system primarily because of discriminatory policies. Maybe there are inten- tional and unintentional dynamics built into the system that make those of lower social class more likely to be caught and punished for their law-violating behavior.

The disparity and discrimination hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. When evaluating the complex evidence on this issue, neither hypothesis will explain the overrepresentation of the lower class in the criminal justice system in its entirety. Rather, a combination of both explanations is likely the most scientifically accurate explanation of the role of social class in the criminal justice process. Therefore, conceptualizing the constructs of disparity and dis- crimination as poles on a continuum is useful (see Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3: Disparity vs. discrimination: A continuum

The overrepresentation of the poor in the criminal justice system is explained in part by disparities in offending rates and in part by discriminatory policy. These explanations are best represented as poles on a continuum, or endpoints between which lie a series of explanations that combine both disparity and discrimination in different proportions.

Disparity Discrimination

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Disparities in Rates of Offending Evidence suggests that in America, the lower social classes have higher rates of both crime perpetration and crime victimization compared to the middle and upper classes. Many corner- stone criminological theories place social class as one of the most important variables in the origin of criminal behavior. Robert Merton’s strain theory (see Chapter 1) argues that block- ages of legitimate mechanisms for upward social mobility cause crime. For Merton, underper- forming school systems and a lack of viable economic opportunities create anomie and cause crime. Similarly, the theory of social disorganization (see Chapter 1) argues that dilapidated housing, poverty, and generally poor living conditions consistently produce crime. In a more critical lens, conflict criminology (see Chapter 1) posits that the economically dominant class creates laws that criminalize the behavior of the lower classes and vigorously enforces those laws to perpetuate its own power. While these theoretical perspectives outline very different dynamics and conclusions, they all place economics and social class as central to the under- standing of crime. The evidence that low social class is a predictor of criminality is not only theoretical but empirical as well.

Stephen G. Tibbetts (2012), a criminal justice professor at California State University, San Bernardino, presents the following argument:

Crime . . . tends to cluster according to social class, with the lower classes experiencing far more violent offending and victimization. This is now undis- puted and consistently shown across all sources of data regarding criminal offending. . . . To clarify, young, poor, urban males tend to have the highest rates of criminal offending—and this group also has the highest rates of vic- timization as a result of violent offending. (p. 24)

Social science has demonstrated that a series of variables related to social class contribute to crime: poverty, unemployment, poor nutrition, poor housing, exposure to toxins, lack of edu- cational opportunities, and lack of medical care. However, as noted by Reiman (2007), most poor individuals who suffer from combinations of these structural disadvantages do not com- mit crime. Thus, the structural disadvantages associated with poverty and low-class standing should be considered risk factors for crime but do not determine behavior.

In addition, some of the evidence about the relationship between social class and crime is not entirely clear. For example, Theodore Chirico, the William Julius Wilson Professor of Crimi- nology at Florida State University, conducted a powerful meta-analysis in 1987 examining the relationship between unemployment and street crime. A meta-analysis is a review of the major studies done on a particular topic that attempts to unearth common themes and conclusions. According to Chirico, the literature on the impact of unemployment and crimi- nal behavior is mixed at best: “Some studies had found a positive relationship, some a nega- tive relationship, and some no relationship between unemployment and crime” (as cited in Berger et al., 2009, p. 282).

Evidence suggests that lower class individuals and groups have higher rates, or disparities, in criminal offending and victimization. However, there is also considerable evidence that the criminal justice system actively discriminates by social class. Both intentional and unin- tentional discrimination make the behavior of the lower classes more likely to come to the attention of law enforcement and more likely to be punished harshly by the criminal justice system.

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Case Study: The Saints and the Roughnecks

In 1973 renowned criminologist William J. Chambliss published “The Saints and the Rough- necks,” a groundbreaking ethnography about social class, perception, and criminal justice pol- icy. Chambliss conducted participant observation at a high school in a suburban area outside of Seattle, Washington, that he dubbed “Hanibal High.” Within Hanibal High, Chambliss’s study focused on two groups of deviant high school boys that he called the “Saints” and the “Rough- necks.” This study examined the deviant behavior of these groups and their respective interac- tions with power holders in the community: school officials, parents, and law enforcement.

According to Chambliss (1973), the Saints were “eight promising young men—children of good, stable White upper-middle-class families . . . good pre-college students—were some of the most delinquent boys at Hanibal High School” (p. 24). The social location and life chances of the Saints were much different than those of the Roughnecks. Chambliss (1973) described the Roughnecks as “six lower-class white boys . . . constantly in trouble with police and com- munity even though their rate of delinquency was about equal with that of the Saints” (p. 24).

The Saints and the Roughnecks committed very similar types of crime and deviance at similar rates. It was common for the Saints to engage in vandalism, some petty theft, truancy, and alcohol and drug use. The criminal behavior of the Roughnecks centered on fighting, drinking, and theft. Despite these similar levels and types of criminality, power holders in the commu- nity perceived the two groups of boys quite differently. Moreover, the behavior of the Rough- necks was much more likely to result in official law enforcement consequences. Throughout the course of the 2-year study, the Saints were never officially arrested. In contrast, in the same period, each member of the Roughnecks was arrested at least one time. Multiple Roughnecks were arrested several times, and ultimately two Roughnecks spent 6 months in a school for boys as punishment for their criminal behavior.

Parents, school officials, and law enforcement viewed the two groups of boys very differently. The community largely determined that the Saints were young boys who were “sowing their wild oats”—engaging in nominal rule breaking and testing boundaries but otherwise destined for bright futures. In dramatic contrast, the criminal behavior of the Roughnecks was assumed to be indicative of more serious forms of criminality later in life. Chambliss determined that a combination of three variables could explain the differential treatment and perception of these two groups: visibility, demeanor, and bias.

According to Chambliss (1973), “This differential visibility was a direct function of the eco- nomic standing of the families. The Saints had access to automobiles and were able to remove themselves from the sight of the community” (p. 29). The Saints had the privilege of commit- ting their deviant and criminal behavior—vandalism and petty theft in particular—in nearby neighborhoods and communities. Similarly, the Saints were able to conceal a great deal of their drug and alcohol consumption inside their respective houses. These visibility advantages were crucial in allowing the Saints to maintain a relatively wholesome public image despite their overt criminality.

In contrast, the deviant and criminal behavior of the Roughnecks was very visible to power holders in the community. The Roughnecks did not have access to cars or expansive homes. Thus, they engaged in petty theft, alcohol consumption, and fighting outside, often in the mid- dle of their community. This study suggests that visible crimes committed in public spaces are not only more likely to come to the attention of the community but also more likely to elicit concern and lead to social control efforts. While visibility was critically important to the dif- ferential perceptions of these two groups, other variables were important as well.

(continued on next page)

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Discriminatory Policy: Visibility As originally demonstrated by Chambliss, visibility advantages and disadvantages are criti- cally important in the contemporary investigation of social class and crime. Individuals who live in residentially crowded, lower class communities have less privacy in all aspects. There- fore, in lower class communities with high population density, residents are much more vis- ible to law enforcement. Criminologists have consistently found that neighborhood differ- ences in police presence and residential crowding shape one’s vulnerability to apprehension and arrest by police.

The job of law enforcement is to police public spaces. Due to the lack of sufficient private space in many lower class neighborhoods, streets, parks, and common areas become active centers for social interaction and daily living (Berger et al., 2009). As a result, police are more likely to actively patrol these lower class neighborhoods and communities, and thus citizens from these communities are more likely to be arrested (Sampson, 1986).

Case Study: The Saints and the Roughnecks (continued)

The respective demeanor of each group was also critical to their differing reputations. When law enforcement, school officials, and powerful members of the community confronted the Saints, they were notably “apologetic and penitent” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 30). The Saints feigned subservience to adults and exuded middle-class values. In contrast, the Roughnecks were very aggressive when confronted by authority figures. They expressed “hostility and dis- dain” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 30) in these interactions that further entrenched their negative perception among the community.

The third explanatory variable in the study was bias. According to Chambliss, visibility and demeanor contributed to unfair and prejudicial treatment of the Roughnecks by the commu- nity, school officials, and law enforcement. He argued that class-based bias led to a predisposi- tion to favor the Saints and to consistently give them sympathetic treatment. In contrast, when a Roughneck was facing consequences for criminal or deviant behavior, even the boy’s own parents seemed to assume the worst; the bad behavior of the Roughneck was evidence that he was destined to commit more serious types of crime in the future.

Chambliss (1973) concluded that visibility, demeanor, and bias are “surface variables” that work in combination to explain the differential treatment of the Saints and the Roughnecks (p. 30). He argued that community and law enforcement discretion is influenced by “the class structure of American society and the control of legal institutions by those at the top of the class structure” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 30). The study suggests that social class differences can lead to very different perceptions and treatment of similar behavior. The powerful conclusion in “The Saints and the Roughnecks” reaffirms that class-based discrimination shapes percep- tions of criminality and law enforcement behavior: “Selective perception and labeling—find- ing, processing and punishing some kinds of criminality and not others—means that visible, poor, non-mobile, outspoken, undiplomatic ‘tough’ kids will be noticed, whether their actions are seriously delinquent or not” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 31).

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Whether these social class dynamics represent active discrimination by law enforcement is debatable. Driven by population density, residential crowding, and lack of privacy, individuals from many lower class communities are more likely to be arrested compared to more affluent individuals from other types of communities. Affluent people generally possess much more privacy than people living in overcrowded, poorer neighborhoods in the United States. Thus, much like the Saints and Roughnecks, lower class and upper class individuals may be engaged in similar types of criminal behavior, but lower class individuals are much more likely to have their behavior come to the attention of law enforcement. However, a robust police presence in many suburban and rural communities with ample private space is likely not an effective resource allocation strategy by law enforcement. Police patrol of expansive communities with comparatively little social living and daily interaction taking place outside is likely not very effective in uncovering or deterring crime. Regardless of whether these dynamics are con- sidered discriminatory, residential crowding is likely one of the most important dynamics in understanding inequality in the contemporary criminal justice system.

In the Field: An Expert Weighs In on Crime and Class

Erik Fritsvold

Can you please tell us more about your research for your book Dorm Room Dealers? How do the relationships between drugs, crime, and class in this group differ from the relationships between drugs, crime, and class in other drug networks?

When we compared the group we were researching with the legacy of crime and drugs studies, we found three big areas of difference for the dorm room dealers: mini- mal intervention, haphazard approaches, and access to resources. Dorm room dealers existed in social circum- stances where their lives were not actively policed and didn’t consider the threats or risks, such as robbery or police intervention. One of our subjects did get caught. He came clean and then had the financial ability to get a good defense attorney. Resources matter. This was a cru- cial moment that reinforced what criminal justice stud- ies have said.

Courtesy of Erik Fritsvold Erik Fritsvold, associate professor of sociology at the University of San Diego in San Diego, California.

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Discriminatory Policy: Bail The evidence suggests that the bail pro- cess unfairly disadvantages members of the lower classes in the criminal justice process. At an initial appearance in court, defendants can be released on their own recognizance, held without bail, or given the option to post bail. Defendants released on their own recognizance (sometimes called ROR) are not required to post bail, since they are typi- cally facing relatively minor charges and are not perceived as a threat to the community or a flight risk by the judge. The court grants these defendants some degree of trust that they will show up for future court dates as agreed. Defendants held without bail are perceived by the judge to pose a threat to community safety or themselves, are likely not to show up for court (known as a flight risk), and/or are more likely to be facing serious charges. Bail is a collateral program that is a middle-ground option between ROR and holding a defendant without bail.

Web Field Trip: Broken Windows Theory

Broken windows theory is a branch of social structure theory written about extensively by Skogan (1990) and Kelling and Coles (1996). The theory links neighborhood disorder and crime. It suggests that if a broken window is not fixed, it signifies disorder—which will lead to another broken window, which will lead to graffiti, which will lead to community decay, and eventually larger scale crimes. If disorderly behavior is ignored, it sends a message that the area is unsafe and that other crimes will go ignored. The theory works on the assumption that people will be affected by their environment—and if it is deviant, then their behavior will be deviant too.

In the 1990s New York City put the broken windows theory into practice and discovered a significant drop in crime rates, which many researchers credit entirely to the implementation of the theory. Read about how New York City became a safer city through the use of broken windows theory here: http://www.city-journal.org/2009/nytom_ny-crime-decline.html.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Do you think New York City’s drop in crime was related to broken window theory or

was based on other external factors? 2. Have you noticed more illegal incidents reported in your local area in neighborhoods

with broken windows and graffiti?

J. Michael Jones/iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus Criminologists and public policy officials often criticize the bail bonds industry for contributing to the “money for freedom” system.

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/nytom_ny-crime-decline.html

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Bail is collateral provided by the defendant to the state as assurance that they will appear for future scheduled court appearances. The defendant receives their money back by show- ing up in court as agreed (minus appearance fees and/or fines, if applicable). Defendants can post bail in cash, use their home or other property as collateral, or use the services of a bail bondsperson.

The bail bonds industry is a private, for-profit enterprise that plays a significant role in the criminal justice process. If a defendant is granted the option to post bail but cannot afford the full bail amount, they may choose to employ the services of a bail bondsperson. Bail bondspeople usually have storefront offices adjacent to the courthouse, and billboards and other advertisements are common in nearby neighborhoods. Typically, the defendant must forfeit about 10% of the bail amount as a fee for the bondsperson’s services. The bail bonds- person then pays the rest of the required bail money to the court. Most individuals facing criminal charges show up for court as agreed; thus, the bail bonds industry is a very profit- able one (Shelden, 2010) and also fairly controversial (see Web Field Trip: The Risky Business of Bail Bondspeople).

Web Field Trip: The Risky Business of Bail Bondspeople

Bail bondspeople run legal risks as well as risks to their personal safety. Each state has regu- lations regarding how bail bondspeople conduct business and apprehend defendants who have “skipped out” on bail, but such regulations do not always mitigate the risks to both the bondspeople and the defendants. Bondspeople should not be confused with bounty hunters, many of whom have been popularized on reality television shows. Bounty hunters are not sanctioned by governmental agencies, nor are they required to be licensed or trained in any specific way.

Watch the video A Closer Look at Florida’s Bail Bondsmen at https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=km3UfKizsVE, then visit the Florida Division of Insurance Agent and Agency Ser- vices’ page outlining compliance information for bail bond agents in the state of Florida at https://www.myf loridacfo.com/division/agents/compliance/bailbondagents.htm.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. In the video, Maria Paternal claims that bail bondspeople have “more rights than police

officers.” Based on what you’ve read, is this true? 2. Does the notion that defendants released on bond and tied to an agency are the “prop-

erty” of the agency contradict the U.S Constitution in any way? Why or why not?

Criminologists and public policy officials often criticize the bail bonds industry. Some per- ceive the bail system itself as a process that essentially allows individuals to buy their free- dom. The bail bonds industry, as a for-profit private industry, further exacerbates the ethical questions inherent in the “money for freedom” system. In part because of these ethical issues, the for-profit bail bonds industry has been prohibited by law or greatly restricted in several states, including Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and Wis- consin, as well as Washington, DC. (HG.org, n.d.).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km3UfKizsVE

https://www.myfloridacfo.com/division/agents/compliance/bailbondagents.htm

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Potentially the most controversial aspect of the bail system is that it impacts the results of the criminal justice process. Defendants who are denied bail or cannot afford the bail amount required are held in jail until their trial or until their case is resolved via a plea bargain. Defen- dants held in jail may lose their job and are separated from family and friends; thus, they may be more likely to take a plea bargain. According to Subramanian et al. (2015):

For defendants on low-level charges—who have been detained pretrial due to an inability to pay bail, a lack of pretrial diversion options, or an inability to qualify for those options that are available—a guilty plea may, paradoxically, be the fastest way to get out of jail. (p. 38)

Similarly, research has shown that defendants unable to make bail are at an unfair disadvan- tage in the judicial process. A series of research studies over time has demonstrated that pre- trial detainees (defendants who were denied bail and defendants who could not afford bail) are more likely to be convicted at trial compared to similar defendants who were not pretrial detainees. In addition, pretrial detainees are more likely to receive longer sentences if found guilty (Cohen & Reaves, 2006). Studies conducted in New York City, Detroit, and Connecticut have shown that even when controlling for other variables, pretrial detainees end up with worse outcomes compared to non-pretrial detainees (Donziger, 1996; Single, 1972; Walker et al., 2012). That means that even when comparing individual defendants facing similar crimi- nal charges with similar criminal records and with similar individual characteristics (fam- ily, employment history, etc.), pretrial detainees are more likely to be found guilty and more likely to serve longer sentences compared to similar non-pretrial detainees.

In 1972 a cornerstone study demonstrated the unfair impact of being denied bail on judicial outcomes. Examining the criminal cases of 857 indigent defendants in New York City, the study concluded:

Those people who must wait in jail for the disposition of the criminal charges against them because they do not have enough money to purchase their free- dom are far more often convicted, far more often given a prison term, and far more often given a long prison term than those people who obtain their release during this time. . . . [This] is not accounted for by any factor related to the merits of the cases, such as the seriousness and nature of the charges, the weight of the evidence and the presence or absence of aggravated circum- stances, prior criminal record, family and community ties, or the amount of bail. (Single, 1972, p. 459)

Discriminatory Policy: Attorney Representation The issue of attorney representation demonstrates another way that social class may con- tribute to discrimination in the criminal justice system. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Con- stitution guarantees the assistance of legal counsel to defendants facing criminal charges. Defendants are entitled to legal representation, and if they cannot afford a private attorney, a public defender—an attorney appointed by the court and paid by the state to provide legal representation to defendants—will be provided (see the feature Defining Crime in America: The Sixth Amendment). Criminological research demonstrates that the ability to afford a pri- vate attorney significantly impacts the outcomes of criminal cases.

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Public defenders are a major component of the contemporary criminal justice system. Approximately 80% of felony defendants at the state level and 67% of felony defen- dants at the federal level cannot afford to hire their own private attorney representa- tion (Berger et al., 2009; Smith & DeFran- ces, 1996) and will be appointed a public defender. Public defenders are sometimes perceived as lower in status within the legal profession (Shelden, 2010). However, as in any profession, public defenders vary as individuals and often are more skilled than their private counterparts or the prosecu- tors they oppose.

Public defenders face a series of structural factors that put their indigent clients at a disadvantage in the criminal justice process. Public defenders are more likely to be young and comparatively less experienced. More sig- nificantly, public defenders typically manage much bigger caseloads than private attorneys; therefore, they have less time to devote to each individual client. Similarly, public defenders are less likely to have the time and monetary resources to hire experts and investigators, visit crime scenes, and examine evidence. When combined, these factors not only limit a poor defendant’s ability to receive zealous representation but also contribute to social class disad- vantages built into the criminal justice system.

Evidence suggests that defendants are aware of the advantages of having private legal rep- resentation. In 1998 Steven Bogira, a writer for The Chicago Reader, conducted a yearlong journalistic investigation of Chicago’s Cook County Courthouse. Bogira (2006) reported that the term used by criminal defendants for private attorneys clearly reflects the structural dis- advantages of having a public defender: In jails and courtrooms in Cook County, a private attorney is simply called “a real lawyer” (p. 124).

Defining Crime in America: The Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and pub- lic trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compul- sory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Coun- sel for his defense [emphasis added]. (U.S. Const. amend. VI)

Case Study: 194 to 1

In 2017 The New York Times tracked the caseload of Jack Talaska, a lawyer serving the indigent in Lafayette, Louisiana. During that time, he represented people charged in 194 felony cases. Taking into consideration the average amount of time required for each case assigned to him, Talaska would need to have performed the work of five full-time lawyers to properly defend each of his clients. According to Talaska, “The workload can be overwhelming even under the best circumstances, and most offices never experience the best circumstances. . . . Most offices don’t have paralegals, law clerks, or full-time investigators” (as cited in Oppel & Patel, 2019, para. 8).

(continued on next page)

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Discriminatory Policy: Plea Bargains The plea bargaining process can also contribute to the disadvantage of lower class individuals in the criminal justice system. A plea bargain is a deal or arrangement between the accused and the state to resolve a criminal case. The defendant waives the right to a trial and enters a plea of guilty, often to a lesser crime with a more lenient sentence compared to the origi- nal criminal charge. The prosecutor (on behalf of the party bringing the charges against the defendant), defense lawyer, and defendant agree to the more lenient terms, in part because they do not have to invest the time and other resources in investigating the case, gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, or going to trial. The plea bargain is thus a deal that can be mutually beneficial for both sides. In dramatic contrast to media portrayals of the criminal justice process on shows like Law & Order, The Good Wife, and other courtroom dramas, well over 90% of criminal cases end by way of a plea bargain (Alkon, 2017).

The context of plea bargaining does not impact all social classes equally and thus can be framed as discriminatory policy. Plea bargains combine with bail dynamics to have an adverse and discriminatory impact on members of the lower classes. If defendants are offered bail but cannot afford it, they will be incarcerated in jail until their case is resolved, via a trial or a plea bargain. This is likely to encourage defendants who cannot afford bail to take plea bargains that they might be hesitant to take if they were free in the community awaiting trial. Similarly, defendants who are free on bail can more actively participate in their own defense. Being unable to post bail can make defendants more likely to take a plea bargain.

Case Study: 194 to 1 (continued)

Impossible caseloads are not limited to Louisiana. The article also revealed that public defend- ers in Colorado, Missouri, and Rhode Island had 2 to 3 times the size of a reasonable caseload, seriously hindering their ability to provide an adequate defense.

The question becomes how to fix the system. Public defenders and other reformers have sug- gested that “decriminalizing more offenses related to homelessness, drug addiction and men- tal illness would . . . free up public defenders to spend more time on serious cases” (Oppel & Patel, 2019, para. 34). And while defendants can raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel for poor lawyer performance, winning on such issues can be difficult. According to the article, “the bar [for ineffective defense] is high. Some judges have ruled that taking illegal drugs, driving to court drunk or briefly falling asleep at the defense table—even during critical testimony—did not make a lawyer inadequate” (Oppel & Patel, 2019, para. 4).

Read more about this issue and how it disproportionately affects defendants of lower socio- economic classes at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/31/us/public-defender -case-loads.html.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. In what ways do these constraints on public defenders’ time and resources disadvantage

the defendants they represent? 2. How would you recommend fixing the current system so public defenders could devote

more time to each defendant’s case?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/31/us/public-defender-case-loads.html

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

Likewise, plea bargains combined with issues of attorney representation can create an adverse, discriminatory impact on members of the lower classes. Much like a defendant who cannot afford to post bail, an indigent defendant represented by a public defender may be more likely to take a plea bargain compared to a defendant who can afford a private attorney. As discussed, defendants represented by the public defender are at a structural disadvantage compared to defendants represented by private counsel. Defendants, possibly realizing that they are likely to receive less than the most vigorous defense possible if their case would go to trial, are thus indirectly pressured to take a plea bargain.

Issues of plea bargaining, attorney representation, and bail may not be intentionally discrimi- natory. While in practice these issues result in structural disadvantages for poor defendants, they may be the unintentional by-product of an overcrowded and overburdened system.

Web Field Trip: Legal Representation and Social Class

Visit the website of KPBS (http://www.kpbs.org/audioclips/13308) and read the interview with Stephen B. Bright titled “The Quality of a Legal Defense: Does It Matter If You’re Rich or Poor?” Bright is the president and senior counsel for the Southern Center for Human Rights, a group dedicated to a series of human rights issues in the criminal justice system.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. How does geographic location play a role in the quality of representation provided by

the public defender? 2. How does the overburdened public defense system in many areas contribute to issues

of wrongful conviction? 3. What do you think can be done to improve this issue?

Disparity Versus Discrimination The examination of the overrepresentation of the lower classes in the criminal justice system is complex; there is no single variable, dynamic, or reason that explains this dramatic over- representation in its entirety. However, taking into account the many topics surveyed in this chapter, some preliminary conclusions can be made concerning the disparity versus discrimi- nation debate.

Some modest evidence exists to support the disparity arguments that the poor commit crimes at a higher rate and are thus overrepresented at all levels of the criminal justice system. Sev- eral cornerstone theories in criminology were constructed after studying poor, often urban communities with higher crime rates. Moreover, when examining the Uniform Crime Report and other law enforcement–based measures of crime (discussed in Chapter 1), the lower social classes are much more likely to be perpetrators of crime and victims of crime (Tib- betts, 2012). Poverty, dilapidated housing, underfunded school systems, and a lack of access to legitimate economic opportunities are all important issues correlating with and perhaps even causing crime. However, significant evidence indicates that procedures built into the criminal justice system benefit those of higher social class at nearly every stage compared to those on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum.

http://www.kpbs.org/audioclips/13308

Section 3.3 White-Collar Crime

Ample evidence shows that both intentional and unintentional discrimination play signifi- cant roles in the overrepresentation of the lower class and the underrepresentation of the upper class in the criminal justice system. The evidence suggests that visibility produced by residential crowding may be one of the most important dynamics within the disparity ver- sus discrimination debate. Residentially crowded communities with less privacy and a more vibrant public life make residents of these communities much more likely to have their behav- ior come to the attention of law enforcement. In contrast, living in a community with sufficient private space likely makes the perpetrators of certain types of crimes such as domestic abuse, drug use, and drug dealing much less likely to come to the attention of law enforcement.

Once arrested and placed in the criminal justice system, those of higher social class have a series of structural advantages. Those with financial means are more likely to be able to post bail and to hire a private attorney and, in some circumstances, have more leverage in the plea bargaining process. These dynamics are explicitly related to social and economic class. Statistics suggest quite strongly that a defendant who cannot afford bail and who relies on a public defender is at a disadvantage in the plea bargaining process. Defendants so situated are more likely to be more severely punished for their crimes. In combination, these dynam- ics suggest that the criminal justice system systematically disadvantages members of lower classes. Thus, discriminatory factors are a significant contributor to the overrepresentation of the poor in the criminal justice system.

3.3 White-Collar Crime An understanding of white-collar and corporate crime is essential to the investigation of social class and its impacts on criminality. The concept of white-collar crime goes back thousands of years, but the actual term white collar creates the image of a man in a suit with a white shirt. The implication is that this sort of crime is committed by the “upper crust” and not by one who fits the stereotypical image of what a criminal looks like. Nearly a century of evidence suggests that the costs of white-collar crimes are significant, but because they do not result in violence against a victim and are much harder to prove than most street crime, punishments tend to be less severe when compared to those for street crime.

White-Collar Crime Defined In 1939 Edwin Sutherland stepped onto the podium to give the annual presidential address to the American Sociological Society. In this address, he argued that the discipline of sociol- ogy has historically focused too much scholarly attention on crimes committed by the poor and marginalized. He strongly advocated that the social-scientific community should strive to understand, theorize, and measure crimes committed by powerful and wealthy individuals in society. In short, science should focus on crimes in the suites—not just crimes in the streets.

Sutherland (1949) originally defined white-collar crime as “crime committed by a person of high respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” (p. 9). He defined this concept after studying 70 of America’s largest corporations, including General Motors, Sears Roebuck, and Montgomery Ward. He determined these 70 corporations were responsible for

Section 3.3 White-Collar Crime

a total of 980 legal violations. The vast majority of these crimes were violations of regulatory laws that seek to deter unsavory business practices and procedures such as price fixing, false advertising, and violating patents and trademarks. Sutherland advanced that 16% of these actions were violations of criminal law. With his research and definition of white-collar crime, Sutherland encouraged analysis of a critically important area of study for criminology and a critical challenge facing society (Berger, 2011; Sutherland, 1949).

Since Sutherland’s original definition of the term, subsequent scholars have expanded and refined the types and definitions of the concept. According to Ron Berger (2011), a sociology professor at the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater and author of White-Collar Crime: The Abuse of Corporate and Government Power, Herbert Edelhertz likely created the most use- ful definition of white-collar crime for law enforcement and prosecutorial purposes in 1970. Edelhertz was the head of the DOJ’s Fraud Section and offered the following definition of white-collar crime: “an illegal act or series of illegal acts committed by nonphysical means and by concealment or guile to obtain money or property, to avoid the payment or loss of money or property, or to obtain business or personal advantage” (as cited in Berger, 2011, pp. 9–10).

Although Sutherland’s and Edelhertz’s definitions are succinct and straightforward, in prac- tice, defining white-collar crime is often more complex. According to Gottschalk and Gun- nesdal (2018), confusion over what constitutes white-collar crime can be attributed to the determination in Sutherland’s research that white-collar crime is “both a crime committed by a specific type of person, and it is a specific type of crime” (p. 1). However, later research concluded that “white-collar crime is no specific type of crime; it is only a crime committed by a specific type of person” (Gottschalk & Gunnesdal, 2018, p. 4). According to the FBI, white- collar crime is an expansive concept that includes many types of criminal behavior. Common white-collar crimes include various types of fraud, including identity theft, money laundering, cybercrime, bribery, embezzlement, and many forms of political corruption.

The Costs of White-Collar Crime Evidence suggests that the financial and human costs of white-collar crime are greater than all street crime combined. The FBI stated that the annual cost of white-collar crime in 2016 was over $500 billion, well above the estimated $15 billion cost of personal property crimes (Khan, 2018). Jeffrey Reiman’s (2007) analysis of ideology, class, and criminal justice demon- strates that dangerous working environments (which violate environmental laws), long-term diseases associated with working in certain industries, environmental hazards, pollution, and dangerous consumer goods cause significant harm to society. Reiman demonstrates that annually, approximately 55,000 people die as a result of diseases associated with their occu- pation and unsafe working conditions. Unfortunately, these statistics go largely unnoticed by the media and the public, since most coverage tends to focus on violent crimes and sensa- tional criminal news. While there are approximately 16,000 homicides each year in America, there are approximately 2.3 million workers who become seriously injured or ill as a result of poor or improper working conditions. In contrast, according to law enforcement crime data, about 860,000 aggravated assaults take place each year (Berger et al., 2009; Reiman, 2007). Clearly, the harms of white-collar crime are significant and thus require attention from crimi- nologists, policy makers, law enforcement agencies, and the public.

Section 3.3 White-Collar Crime

Case Study: The Ford Pinto

The Ford Pinto is a central case study in the inves- tigation of white-collar crime. The Ford Motor Company manufactured and sold the Pinto begin- ning in the early 1970s. Like many cars of the era, the Pinto was designed to be lighter, more fuel efficient, and more economical to compete with cars built by Japanese and German auto manu- facturers. In order to make the Pinto smaller and lighter, the gas task was placed in close proximity to the rear of the vehicle. This engineering deci- sion made the Pinto very susceptible to gasoline leaks, fires, and explosions in accidents involving the rear of the vehicle. These fuel-tank dangers existed even in rear-end accidents at relatively moderate speeds of approximately 30 miles per hour (Berger, 2011; Rosoff et al., 2009).

The evidence suggests that many high-ranking employees, engineers, managers, and executives at Ford Motor Company were aware of these dangers and chose to make the Pinto available to the general public anyway. Ford engineers had considered a series of safety enhancements to the Pinto’s gas tank, but the company determined that the safety improvements were too expensive. More specifically, Ford projected that the monetary awards of civil suits associated with the Pinto would be less expensive than fixing the problem and making the cars less dan- gerous (Berger, 2011; Rosoff et al., 2009).

The Pinto was responsible for a series of burn-related injuries and deaths and eventually sub- ject to an official recall. The specific number of burn-related fatalities attributable to the fuel- tank design flaw varies widely, from a low of 27 burn-related fatalities to a high of 500 (Berger, 2011). As a result, Ford Motor Company paid out millions of dollars to victims in civil lawsuit damages. Ford even faced reckless homicide charges in an Indiana criminal court but was ultimately found not guilty by the jury. One of the key questions in the Ford Pinto case—and many criminal cases involving the deaths and injuries caused by unsafe products—is the issue of intent (Berger, 2011; Rosoff et al., 2009).

Critical Thinking Questions 1. If you had been a juror on this case, would you have found that Ford should not have

been convicted of reckless homicide? Why or why not? 2. What responsibilities do companies have to ensure that products are safe? Should viola-

tions for endangering the public be civil (money damages) or criminal? 3. Should the leaders of Ford Motor Company who were aware of the risks but ignored

them for profit incentives be individually guilty of crimes? If not, why not? If so, what are the crimes that the individuals committed?

ASSOCIATED PRESS A 1973 Ford Pinto after it was crashed into by a van going just over 50 miles per hour.

Section 3.3 White-Collar Crime

Cybercrime Cybercrime is commonly listed as one of the new vanguards of criminal law. Criminal laws must be in writing (created by federal, state, or local legislatures) to give people notice of prohibited conduct (McMunigal, 2004). However, there is still no exact, widely accepted defi- nition for what constitutes cybercrime. Indeed, even the term cybercrime itself is not used unanimously. According to Sarre et al., (2018), “It is sometimes called ‘electronic crime,’ ‘com- puter crime,’ ‘computer-related crime,’ ‘hi-tech crime,’ ‘technology-enabled crime,’ ‘e-crime’ or ‘cyberspace crime’” (p. 515). More specifics on cybercrime are discussed in Chapter 9 of this text, but an examination of the sociological makeup of cybercriminals exposes an anom- aly in how we think about where criminals typically fall on the criminal violator spectrum.

Much of the discussion in this chapter has reflected on the social status, race, and gender of people convicted of crimes. Patterns typically develop based on the kinds of crimes committed by “types” of people on a larger scale. However, cybercrimes can be as inventive and unique as the types of people committing them. A cybercriminal could be a lone hacker in the basement of their mother’s home or a sophisticated white-collar criminal bilking banks and individu- als of money through technology-enabled theft and fraud. Cybercrime need not be domestic, either. The interconnectivity of electronic systems and databases leave unwary individuals and institutions vulnerable to dozens of varying types of cybercrimes (see Table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Types of cybercrime

Socioeconomic cybercrime Psychosocial cybercrime Geopolitical cybercrime

Hackers and crackers Hackers and crackers Hackers—‘Hacktivist’

Cyber fraud Child pornography Cyber spies

Cyber embezzlement Cyber stalking Cyber espionage

Cyber piracy Cyber bullying Cyber terrorism

Cyber blackmail Revenge porn Cyber Vandalism

Romance scam Cyber rape Cyber assault

Online drug trafficking Cyber hate speech Cyber hate speech

Cyber prostitution Cyber extortion Cyber riot

Cyber extortion Obscenity Cyber sabotage

Illegal online gambling Cyber-prostitution Cyber-colonialism

Cyber Trespass Cyber Trespass Cyber rebellion

Cyber terrorism Cyber homicide Cyber terrorism

Note. Some types of cybercrime fall under more than one category.

Source: “Social and Contextual Taxonomy of Cybercrime: Socioeconomic Theory of Nigerian Cybercriminals,” by S. Ibrahim, 2016, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 47, p. 45 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175 6061616300787).

Section 3.3 White-Collar Crime

White-Collar Crime and Intent The state must prove a defendant possessed the necessary level of intent to prove a viola- tion of criminal law in the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States. Intent is also one of the most critical questions involving white-collar crime. Many white-collar crimes are intentional with clearly defined and identifiable victims. However, in cases of workplace acci- dents and unsafe products, the issue of intent is a murky one. Reiman (2007) describes this important tension:

What keeps a mine disaster from being a mass murder . . . is that it is not a one-on-one harm. . . . the desire of someone (or ones) to harm someone (or ones) else. . . . A mine executive . . . does not want his employees to be harmed. He would truly prefer that there be no accident, no injured or dead miners. What he does want is something legitimate. It is what he has been hired to get: maximum profits at minimum costs. (pp. 71–73)

Motivations of White-Collar Criminals Criminology as a science strives to understand the motivations for crime and criminal behav- ior; this question is particularly acute for white-collar criminals. Keep in mind that intent is not the same thing as motive, and motive is not an element of intent to prove a crimi- nal charge. The prosecutor must prove that the defendant had the intent to commit a crime but not the reason why the crime was committed. See the feature Defining Crime in America: Motive Versus Intent for more on how these two concepts differ.

Defining Crime in America: Motive Versus Intent “Motive When Not an Element of Charged Crime” from People v. Seppi (1917):

Let me now explain motive, and in particular, the difference between motive and intent.

Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person commits a criminal act with intent when that person’s conscious objective or purpose is to engage in the act which the law forbids or to bring about an unlawful result.

Motive, on the other hand, is the reason why a person chooses to engage in criminal conduct.

If intent is an element of a charged crime, that element must be proved by the People beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, intent is, as I have explained, an element of the crimes. . . .

Motive, however, is not an element of the crimes charged. Therefore, the People are not required to prove a motive for the commission of the charged crime(s).

Nevertheless, evidence of a motive, or evidence of the lack of a motive, may be consid- ered by the jury.

For example, if you find from the evidence that the defendant had a motive to commit the crime charged, that is a circumstance you may wish to consider as tending to support a finding of guilt.

On the other hand, if the proof establishes that the defendant had no motive to commit the crime charged, that is a circumstance you may wish to consider as tending to estab- lish that the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.

Section 3.3 White-Collar Crime

White-collar crime is often committed by individuals who have already achieved some degree of economic success. In fact, in many high-profile cases of white-collar crime—such as MCI Telecommunications, Enron Corporation, Tyco, and WorldCom—it was precisely the power, influence, and economic success of the perpetrators that facilitated the criminal behavior. In Why Do They Do It? The Motives, Mores, and Character of White Collar Criminals, Bucy et al. (2008) conducted research in hopes of informing this question of motive:

Why do talented, bright, highly educated, successful people, who have “made it,” risk it all by lying, stealing, and cheating, especially when what they’re stealing is not much compared to what they have? The simple answer is, “because they can.” (p. 401)

To address the research question, the researchers conducted 45 interviews with accused white-collar crime defendants, experienced white-collar prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Based on this interview data, they concluded that there were two main types of white-collar criminals: leaders and followers. Leaders tended to have dominant, assertive personalities, and many had an enthusiasm for risk taking. In contrast, followers were subservient and often manipulated by the leaders into participating in the criminal scheme.

The researchers conceptualized the leaders category in part based on interview data from subjects asked to describe “common personality or demographic traits” (Bucy et al., 2008, p. 473) of white-collar criminals. Subject responses included “They tend to be risk-takers. They are just basically doing business that has an illegal feature about it, and they know that, but they do not view it as anything other than business,” and “They have very large egos, are very narcissistic, have an inflated sense of self, and are generally very charismatic and smart” (Bucy et al., 2008, p. 473).

When asked about the motivations of white-collar criminals, some major themes emerged from the interview data. While many subjects cited greed as a motivating factor, the larger context and pressures of capitalism and business culture were also prominent among the responses. As one subject described:

Very few companies really encourage criminal activity. Most of the time it is the absence of adequate controls to catch it that encourages criminal activity. Corporations want to make money, and they may not have the proper con- trols to catch the actions of dishonest people. Greed and the pressure to meet the expectations of Wall Street also encourage cutting corners. There may be managers who people are afraid to challenge. Convictions are often the result of a bad business plan, negligence, even gross negligence, but not criminal conduct. (Bucy et al., 2008, p. 517)

In sum, white-collar and corporate crime result in significant financial and human costs to American society and the world community. As criminologists, it is imperative to understand the origins of white-collar crime, cornerstone cases, and motivations of the offenders. In addi- tion, white-collar crime contributes to our understanding of the relationship between social class and crime because many perpetrators of white-collar crime have achieved some degree of economic success.

Chapter Summary

Chapter Summary The relationship between social class and crime is complex. This chapter utilized empiri- cal evidence to explore this relationship. Various conceptualizations and measures of social class and inequality were presented. Social scientists often conceptualize social class to include income and wealth but also incorporate the corresponding personal and social advantage. Data was presented that illustrated the extent of stratification in America and the dramatically disproportionate distribution of wealth in this country.

The bulk of the chapter focused on the disparity versus discrimination debate. Members of the lower classes are dramatically overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Is this best explained by disparities in rates of offending? Or are there intentional and uninten- tional policies built into the criminal justice system that disadvantage, and thus discrimi- nate against, members of the lower classes? After investigating issues such as visibility, bail, attorney representation, and plea bargains, the evidence suggests that both disparity and discrimination play a role. However, the bulk of the evidence suggests that at several stages of the criminal justice process, members of the higher classes benefit from a series of structural advantages. These advantages increase the likelihood that the behavior of the lower classes will come to the attention of law enforcement and will be more likely to result in severe consequences from the criminal justice system.

The final section of this chapter investigated white-collar crime. The origins, evolution, and definitions of white-collar crime were presented. Empirical evidence was examined con- cerning the scope and harm caused by white-collar crime in comparison to street crime. And the motivations of white-collar criminals were investigated. The goal of this chapter was to provide students a data-driven and scientific look into the relationship between social class and crime.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. What is the difference between risk factors for crime and variables that determine

criminal behavior? Cite examples of each. 2. People who live in lower class, high-density communities have less privacy. In what

way, if any, do you think having less privacy contributes to criminal behavior and activity?

3. What do you think best explains the overrepresentation of lower class people in the criminal justice system?

4. Why are spousal abuse and illegal drug use in an upper-middle-class family less likely to come to the attention of local law enforcement?

5. Describe how white-collar crime negatively affects society.

Chapter Summary

Key Terms bail Collateral provided by a defendant that attempts to assure that they will appear for future scheduled court appearances.

life chances An individual’s current eco- nomic standing as well as an individual’s likelihood of becoming economically pow- erful in the future. Life chances reflect one’s position in informal and formal social networks as a predictor of future economic success.

meta-analysis A review of the major stud- ies done on a particular topic that attempts to unearth common themes and conclusions.

plea bargain A deal or arrangement between the accused and the state to resolve the criminal case; the defendant waives the right to a trial and enters a plea of guilty, often to a lesser crime with more lenient sentences compared to the original criminal charge.

public defender An attorney appointed by the court and paid by the state to provide legal representation to defendants who can- not afford their own private attorney.

social class A group that has a similar level of economic and social status, including income, wealth, and power.

social inequality The unequal distribution of power, goods, and services between indi- viduals or groups at a given moment in time.

social stratification Structured inequali- ties between groups that have become long standing and relatively permanent.

white-collar crime The use of concealment or cunning by a person of high social status with the intent of obtaining or preventing the loss of money or property or of obtain- ing business or personal advantage.

Bookmarks