W5: Types of Crime: Violent, Property & White-Collar

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A Comparison of Perceived Seriousness and Punitiveness

Cedric Michel1

Published online: 21 August 2015 � Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Recent studies have challenged traditional wisdom regarding public apathy about white-collar crime by revealing equal or greater perceived seriousness of these

offenses among respondents relative to traditional crime. Nevertheless, subjects in those

studies were generally asked to contrast white-collar crime scenarios with a non-violent

street crime baseline vignette. Perhaps a violent street crime would have invited lower

perceived seriousness for the white-collar offenses. Participants in the present study were

asked to (1) read vignettes describing violent street crimes and physically harmful white-

collar crimes, (2) compare their seriousness, and (3) determine appropriate sanctions.

Subjects perceived the violent crime scenarios presented to them to be more serious than

the harmful white-collar crime vignettes. Further, they were less punitive toward white-

collar offenders compared with street criminals. Implications of these findings are

discussed.

Introduction

The literature on perceptions of crime severity generally reveals high levels of consensus

among the American public (Grabosky et al. 1987; Hauber et al. 1988; Newman 1976;

Rossi et al. 1974; Scott and Al-Thakeb 1977; Thomas et al. 1976; Warr 1989; Wolfgang

et al. 1985). Phrased differently, widespread agreement seems to exist among all members

of society about perceived seriousness of, and response to, crime. Such consensus is

particularly evident regarding those offenses for which victims incur physical injury or

death (Blumstein and Cohen 1980; Carlson and Williams 1993; Cullen et al. 1985c; Heller

and McEwen 1975; Levi and Jones 1985; O’Connell and Whelan 1996; Roth 1978). It is

not certain, however, whether physical harm alone is sufficient in eliciting universal

& Cedric Michel [email protected]

1 Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Tampa, 401, W. Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL 33606-1490, USA

123

Crit Crim (2016) 24:127–143 DOI 10.1007/s10612-015-9295-2

condemnation or if the type of offense (i.e., street crime vs. white-collar crime) has a

determining influence on public perceptions. For example, a conservative estimate places

at 300,000 the number of people who die every year as a result of white-collar offenses.

This figure includes employees injured in the workplace or affected by toxic chemicals due

to the company’s lack of safety compliance, civilians exposed to toxic waste and deadly

pollutants, and consumers victims of faulty products, addictive substances, or subpar

medical services (Herbert and Landrigan 2000; Kramer 1984; Lynch and Michalowski

2006; Reiman 1998; Reiman and Leighton 2010; Starfield 2000). By comparison, criminal

homicide claims about 14,000 lives annually (UCR 2011). This staggering difference

should naturally translate into greater perceived seriousness of, and punitiveness toward,

white-collar crime. Yet, while public opinion about upper-world criminality has

undoubtedly become more negative in the last 40 years, there is little evidence of a

disproportionately higher concern about crimes of the powerful relative to street crime.

Public Attitudes About White-Collar Crime

In their review of empirical research on Americans’ attitudes about white-collar crime,

Cullen et al. (2009) identified a three-pronged evolution of public sentiments: (1) relative

inattention to the problem during the first half of the twentieth century (Ross 1907;

Sutherland 1949), (2) rising attention from the late 1970s to the early 2000s after infamous

cases such as the Watergate scandal or the Savings and Loan debacle (Cullen et al. 1982,

1983, 1985a, b; Evans et al. 1993; Frank et al. 1989; Goff and Nason-Clark 1989; Gra-

bosky et al. 1987; Hans and Ermann 1989; Meier and Short 1985; Rossi and Berk 1997;

Schrager and Short 1980), and (3) transformed attention in the last 15 years undoubtedly

heightened by the Enron and WorldCom fiascos and Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme

(Holtfreter et al. 2008; Huff et al. 2010; Kane and Wall 2006; Levi 2006, 2009; Piquero

et al. 2008; Rebovich et al. 2000; Schoepfer et al. 2007; Unnever et al. 2008, etc.). Far from

downplaying the importance of elite offenses, subjects in more recent studies often con-

sidered them to be as serious as street crimes. Further, they were generally inclined to

support tough punishments against their perpetrators.

These findings have important implications as they signal a hardening of public attitudes

toward white-collar criminals, whom are still significantly more likely to avoid criminal

prosecution and incarceration compared with street offenders (Calavita et al. 1997; Frie-

drichs 2010; Maddan et al. 2012; Tillman and Pontell 1992). Nevertheless, the conclusion

that Americans are now disposed to condone sanctions of equal or even greater severity

against white-collar crimes relative to traditional offenses may be premature. In fact, the

results found in several of these studies could have been biased by methodological choices

that favored the comparison of white-collar offense scenarios with street crime vignettes

describing a relatively low level of harm.

Methodological Issues

Every 5 years since 1999, the National White-Collar Crime Center—a congressionally

funded non-profit organization—has been surveying Americans’ attitudes about the seri-

ousness and impact of white-collar crime. The first iteration (Rebovich et al. 2000) asked

participants to compare a series of scenarios that described a traditional property crime

(i.e., theft) and white-collar financial crimes (i.e., fraud, embezzlement, bribery, unnec-

essary repair, and false claim), as well as a violent street crime (i.e., armed robbery) and

physically harmful white-collar offenses (i.e., selling tainted meat, neglecting to recall a

128 C. Michel

123

potentially dangerous vehicle, etc.). In almost all cases, participants deemed the white-

collar crime vignettes to be as serious or more serious than the types of street crime

presented to them. A majority even considered allowing tainted meat to be sold and

making someone ill as a result to be more serious than armed robbery. The problem is that

the violent street crime scenario only mentioned that the victim suffered ‘‘serious injury’’.

Perhaps a street crime scenario describing homicide would have invited greater leniency

toward the offenders described in the white-collar crime vignettes. This limitation points to

the necessity of controlling for various levels of harm intensity.

The same criticism can be made regarding the second effort by the National White-

Collar Crime Center (Kane and Wall 2006). This time, participants were presented with

twelve scenarios that depicted (1) white-collar offenses (i.e., auction fraud, false earning

report, omission of safety report, insurance overcharge, embezzlement, database hack,

insurance fraud, and toxic waste) and (2) more traditional types of crime (i.e., burglary,

robbery, assault, and car jacking/murder). Respondents were then asked to compare the

seriousness of these offenses against a baseline street crime scenario that described motor-

vehicle theft. A majority considered the various instances of white-collar crime to be more

serious than the base crime, particularly those that caused physical harm. Once again,

however, perceived seriousness of elite offenses may have been artificially heightened by

the researchers’ choice of car theft (i.e., a non-violent crime) for comparison purposes. In

fact, carjacking/murder was considered to be the most serious offense on the list (relative

to car theft), way above any white-collar crime vignette.

A similar problem emerged in the third and latest iteration (Huff et al. 2010).

Researchers developed a series of short scenarios involving two street crimes (i.e., burglary

and assault), and nine different types of white-collar crime (i.e., embezzlement, identity

theft, false charges, hacking, falsely advertising as safe an anti-depressant drug, espionage,

market rigging, insurance overcharge, and counterfeit sales). Once again, participants were

asked to compare the seriousness of each offense described in these scenarios with a base

crime depicting car theft. Not surprisingly, survey results indicated that respondents

considered white-collar crime to be more serious than traditional crime. More specifically,

crimes that involved direct physical harm (e.g., distributing an anti-depressant drug that

caused random violent acts and deaths) were perceived to be more serious than the crimes

that only resulted in monetary loss. As previously mentioned, however, perhaps the choice

of car theft (i.e., a non-violent property crime) for comparison purposes can explain these

results.

Rationale for the Present Study

Research suggests that public support for ‘‘tough-on-crime’’ policies stems from fear of

crime (Dowler 2003). Evidently, crimes that elicit the greatest fear are those for which

victims incur the most harm (e.g., physical injury, illness, or death). It should come as no

surprise that the National White-Collar Crime Center survey’s subjects would find espi-

onage (especially in post-911 America) or distributing a dangerous medication to be more

serious than car theft. It is unclear, however, whether similar results would have continued

to emerge after a direct comparison of white-collar offenses—even physically harmful

ones—with a violent street crime such as first-degree murder.

One reason to expect a pattern reversal could be the negative label generally associated

with street crime (Hagan 1994). The seriousness construct involves not only harm but also

blameworthiness. Phrased differently, two offenses may cause the same amount of harm

without necessarily eliciting equally universal condemnation. The conventional construction

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A… 129

123

of crime assigns two distinct motives to the violent street offender and the corporate criminal:

one of malevolence for the former, and one of reckless disregard for the latter. According to

this assignment, rapists and murderers are perceived to injure and kill purposely whereas

harmfulness is rather considered a means to an end for business executives (e.g., the Ford

Pinto case). This double standard might find its origin in the primary source of public

knowledge about crime: the news media (Dowler 2003; Roberts and Doob 1990; Surette

1998). As a result of corporate allegiance, TV news outlets tend to place more emphasis on

street crime (Barak 1994; Barlow and Barlow 2010; Ericson et al. 1991; Lynch and

Michalowski 2006; Lynch et al. 1989, 2000). Further, even when corporate crime makes the

headlines (e.g., Enron’s meltdown, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, etc.), the focus is usually

on non-violent cases (Barlow and Barlow 2010), which incorrectly implies that upper class

offenders are less dangerous. Courts and academics alike have also justified this double

standard by focusing disproportionately on street criminals and relegating white-collar

offenses to the rank of victimless crimes (Croall 2007; Gustafson 2007; Wheeler et al. 1988).

Consequently, even if we can expect the public to recognize that white-collar criminals are

sometimes capable of calculated endangerment for profit, they might still evoke the image of

‘‘kinder and gentler’’ offenders (Perri 2011) compared with the perpetrators of violent street

crime.

The present study therefore proposes to address a possible limitation inherent in the

literature on public attitudes about white-collar crime by comparing perceived seriousness

of, and punitiveness toward, physically harmful white-collar crimes with violent street

crimes (i.e., that cause physical injury, illness, or death). Importantly, instead of asking

subjects to rank the seriousness of these offenses individually or relative to a mid-level,

non-violent baseline crime (e.g., car theft), white-collar crime and street crime will be

compared against one another. If public attitudes have indeed evolved in the direction

suggested by the National White-Collar Crime Center, no significant differences should

emerge. Phrased differently, subjects should rate white-collar and street crime as equally

serious. After adjusting for harm intensity, however, we may expect dissensus in perceived

crime severity. That is, violent street crimes committed by disreputable individuals might

elicit more negative attitudes than physically harmful white-collar offenses. The following

hypotheses are tested:

Hypothesis 1 Subjects should evince lesser perceived seriousness of harmful white- collar crimes compared with violent street crimes.

Hypothesis 2 Subjects should evince lesser punitiveness toward the perpetrators of harmful white-collar offenses compared with violent street crime offenders.

Method

Sample Selection

Subjects in this study were recruited on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, an online crowd-

sourcing platform that coordinates the supply and demand of human intelligence tasks

(HITS). A HIT is a relatively short assignment (e.g., a social science survey) that

‘‘Turkers’’ (i.e., anyone over the age of 18 with an Amazon.com account) choose to

complete on the Mechanical Turk website based on monetary compensation and time

allotted for completion. This innovative data collection method has recently become

130 C. Michel

123

increasingly popular in the social sciences (see, e.g., Filone et al. 2014; Martire et al. 2013;

Mathieu et al. 2013; Michel et al. 2014; Nadler and McDonnell 2011) because of its low

cost, convenience, acceptable response rate, sample representativeness, and reliability. An

empirical assessment by Paolacci et al. (2010) concluded that, although limited by their

non-probability nature, Mechanical Turk samples were qualitatively comparable to tradi-

tional college and Internet samples commonly used in social science research.

Data Collection Procedure

The survey was made available on Mechanical Turk on April 1st 2013. The Institutional

Review Board at the author’s former university approved the questionnaire, and every

effort was made to protect subjects’ anonymity. The target sample size was set at 500

participants, a figure successfully reached in previous research (see, e.g., Buhrmester et al.

Table 1 Sentiments about white-collar and street crime (N = 408)

Variables Coding/range Mean SD

Perceived seriousness of white-collar crime and street crime

5 scenarios; 4-point ordinal scale (1 = not very serious; 4 = very serious)

Consumer safety violations (toy) 3.43 .76

Murder 3.91 .36

Toxic dumping 3.51 .64

Rape 3.94 .24

Asbestos exposure 3.71 .52

Punitiveness

Prosecutorial process 3-point ordinal scale (1 = by some non-legal means 2 = in a civil court 3 = In a criminal court)

Consumer safety violations 2.74 .47

Murder 3.0 0

Toxic dumping 2.69 .51

Rape 2.99 .09

Asbestos exposure 2.71 .50

Fine 5-point ordinal scale (0 = no fine; 4 = above $1,000,000.00)

Consumer safety violations 1.83 1.72

Murder .35 .98

Toxic dumping 2.25 1.75

Rape .35 .96

Asbestos exposure 1.78 1.81

Prison sentence 7-point ordinal scale (0 = no prison; 6 = 41 years-life)

Consumer safety violations .84 1.18

Murder 4.68 1.63

Toxic dumping .94 1.32

Rape 3.26 1.57

Asbestos exposure 1.35 1.79

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A… 131

123

2011). While financial compensation for completed HITs can sometimes be as low as

$0.10 (Paolacci et al. 2010), a payment of $2.00 per completed survey was offered to

motivate prospective subjects. This strategy paid off, as the sample size goal of 500 was

reached within only 3 h. Incomplete surveys and those completed too quickly (pilot testing

suggested a minimum completion time of about 10 min) were discarded. The final sample

comprised 408 participants. Forty-nine point 8 % of them were women, 83.6 % described

themselves as Whites, 8.8 % as Blacks, 5 % as Asians, 0.5 % as Middle Easterners, 0.5 %

as American Indians or Alaskan Natives, and 0.2 % as Native Hawaiians or Pacific

Islanders. Six point 9 % identified themselves as Hispanics. College graduates (Bachelor’s

degree or higher) represented almost 50 % of the total sample. Those who reported

belonging to no religion accounted for 43.6 % of all subjects. On average, respondents

were politically liberal, 46 % identified themselves as Democrats, and over 80 % reported

using Internet as their main source of information.

Measures

The purpose of the present study is to compare sentiments about physically harmful white-

collar crimes with violent street crimes. The measures included (1) subjects’ perceived

seriousness of these offenses, and (2) their punitiveness toward their respective perpetra-

tors. Table 1 presents these variables and the coding system used to measure them.

Every measure of crime seriousness is in some way inspired by the primary index scale

developed by Sellin and Wolfgang (1964), which included several criminal descriptions in

the form of short crime scenarios, along with a Likert type scale to help respondents

attribute a particular degree of seriousness. A similar methodology was used in the present

study. More specifically, participants were asked to read five vignettes inspired by Ken-

nedy’s ethics scenarios (2010), some of which described violent street crimes and others

harmful white-collar crimes. Violent street crime scenarios included the following:

a. Homicide: ‘‘Someone attempts to rob a couple while they are walking back to their car

at night. The husband tries to disarm the attacker, but is shot by him. He later dies of

his injuries.’’

b. Forcible rape: ‘‘Someone breaks into a dorm at night and forcibly rapes a female

student.’’

Physically harmful white-collar crime scenarios included the following:

1. Consumer safety violations endangering children: ‘‘Because of cost reductions, the

materials used by a company to build a popular toy will present a potential hazard to

the product’s users. The company decides to manufacture and distribute the toy

regardless of the risks.’’

2. Illegal toxic waste disposal: ‘‘In order to increase profits and meet production goals, a

manufacturing company uses production processes that allow for the release of

pollutants into the water and air that exceed legal limits. Several people become

seriously ill as a result.’’

3. Denial of risk and peril by failing to enforce safety measures on the workplace and to

take responsibility for employees’ toxic contamination (‘‘A mining company fails to

ensure safety measures such as proper ventilation and the use of masks, goggles and

gloves among its workers, and covers up evidence regarding the link between asbestos

exposure and lung cancer deaths.’’

132 C. Michel

123

For each scenario, the respondents were asked to (a) rate the seriousness of the offense

(1 = Not very serious, 2 = Somewhat serious, 3 = Serious, and 4 = Very serious),

decide how the case should be handled (1 = By some non-legal means, 2 = In a non-

criminal court, 3 = In a criminal court), and (b) determine the proper societal response

(i.e., punishment) to them. Response options included fine and/or imprisonment. Finally,

subjects were also asked to choose specific dollar amounts for monetary sanctions via a

5-point ordinal scale (0 = No fine, 1 = Under $100,000, 2 = $100,000–$499,000,

3 = $500,000–$999,999, 4 = Above $1,000,000), as well as the number of years for

incarceration via a seven-point ordinal scale (0 = No prison, 1 = 1–5 years,

2 = 6–10 years, 3 = 11–20 years, 4 = 21–30 years, 5 = 31–40 years, 6 = 41 years-

life).

Results

Perceived Seriousness

Contrary to the National White-Collar Crime Center’s survey, comparisons in the present

study were not based on one single reference crime. Rather, paired samples t tests were

used to allow for comparing mean differences in perceived seriousness and punitiveness

between all five scenarios. Table 2 presents the results of paired samples t tests to compare

mean perceived seriousness of scenarios describing both physically injurious white-collar

crimes (i.e., knowingly manufacturing a potentially dangerous toy, releasing deadly pol-

lutants in a river, and knowingly exposing workers to asbestos) and violent street crimes

(i.e., murder and forcible rape). All scenarios have a mean above 3.00, which is the score

meant to represent ‘‘serious’’ offenses. As could be expected, homicide (M = 3.91,

SD = 0.36) and forcible rape (M = 3.94, SD = 0.24) were perceived to be more serious

than the white-collar crimes described. More precisely, the mean for the murder scenario

was statistically higher than those for the defective toy vignette (t = 12.10, p \ .01, d = 0.60), the deadly pollutants scenario (t = 11.50, p \ .01, d = 0.57), and the asbestos exposure scenario (t = 6.68, p \ .01, d = 0.33).

Similarly, rape was statistically perceived to be more serious than consumer safety

violation (t = 13.12, p \ .01, d = 0.65), toxic dumping (t = 12.89, p \ .01, d = 0.64), and reckless endangerment of employees (t = 8.13, p \ .01, d = 0.40). In all cases, Cohen’s effect sizes suggested small to moderate practical significance. Conversely, the

Table 2 Results of paired samples t tests to compare mean perceived seriousness of white-collar crime and street crime (N = 408)

Baseline Mean (SD) Toy Murder Pollutants Rape

Toy 3.43 (0.76) – – – –

Murder 3.91 (0.36) 212.10** – – –

Pollutants 3.51 (0.64) 21.98* 11.50** – –

Rape 3.94 (0.24) 213.12** -1.67 212.89** –

Asbestos 3.72 (0.52) 27.76** 6.68** 27.07** 8.13**

A mean of 1 = Not very serious, 2 = Somewhat serious, 3 = Serious, and 4 = Very serious

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A… 133

123

means for the two street crime scenarios were the only ones to not statistically differ from

one another.

Of the three harmful white-collar crime scenarios, the one describing the deliberate

manufacturing of a defective toy (M = 3.43, SD = 0.76) was considered less serious than

the toxic dumping scenario (M = 3.51, SD = 0.64, t = -1.98, p \ .05, d = -0.10) and the asbestos exposure scenario (M = 3.72, SD = 0.52, t = -7.76, p \ .01, d = -0.38). However, Cohen’s effect sizes were this time smaller. Similarly, releasing deadly pollu-

tants was considered less serious than the reckless endangerment of employees (t = -7.07,

p \ .01, d = -0.35). In summation, it appears that subjects in this study considered both types of violent

street crime to be (1) of equal seriousness, and (2) more serious than all three instances of

physically harmful white-collar offenses, which brings support to the first hypothesis under

investigation. What remains to be seen is whether similar differences exist in regard to

punitiveness toward the offenders described in these scenarios.

Punitiveness

The second attitude measured was subjects’ level of punitiveness toward the offenders

described in the abovementioned harmful white-collar crime scenarios compared with the

two violent street crimes. Again, measures of punitiveness included (1) choice of prose-

cution process (i.e., by some non-legal means, in a non-criminal court, or in a criminal

court), (2) punishment for their perpetrators (i.e., fine and/or prison) and (3) sentence

severity (i.e., in dollar amounts and/or number of years in prison).

Prosecutorial Process

Table 3 presents the results of paired samples t tests to compare subjects’ choice of

prosecutorial process for white-collar crime and street crime. First of all, no subject chose

the non-legal means alternative for any of the five scenarios. Conversely, homicide was the

only scenario for which every participant recommended the perpetrator be tried in a

criminal court (M = 3.00, SD = 0.00).

In fact, the murder scenario was the only one to be statistically different from all other

instances of crime described, including white-collar offenses such as consumer safety

violation (M = 2.74, SD = 0.47, t = -11.13, p \ .01, d = 0.55), toxic dumping (M = 2.70, SD = 0.51, t = 11.90, p \ .01, d = 0.59), and asbestos exposure (M = 2.71,

Table 3 Results of paired samples t tests to compare subjects’ choice of prosecutorial process for white- collar crime and street crime (N = 408)

Baseline Mean (SD) Toy Murder Pollutants Rape

Toy 2.74 (0.47) – – – –

Murder 3.00 (0.00) 211.13** – – –

Pollutants 2.70 (0.51) 1.45 11.90** – –

Rape 2.99 (0.99) 210.37** 2.01* 211.39** –

Asbestos 2.71 (0.50) 1.12 11.75** -0.47 11.34**

A mean of 1 = Non-legal means, 2 = Civil court, and 3 = Criminal court

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

134 C. Michel

123

SD = 0.50, t = 11.75, p \ .01, d = 0.58), but also—although to a lesser degree—forcible rape (M = 2.99, SD = 0.99, t = 2.01, p \ .05, d = 0.10). Further, subjects were statis- tically more likely to recommend a harsher prosecution process for the rapist than they

were for white-collar offenders in the toy scenario (t = 10.37, p \ .01, d = 0.51), the deadly pollutants scenario (t = 11.39, p \ .01, d = 0.56), and the asbestos exposure scenario (t = 11.34, p \ .01, d = 0.56). Nevertheless, there was no statistical difference between subjects’ choice of prosecutorial process for these three white-collar crimes. More

precisely, participants were more inclined to select a non-criminal court for the perpe-

trators of white-collar offenses, which they perceived to be less serious than murder and

forcible rape.

Monetary Sanction

Similar differences emerged when asking subjects how much, if any, of a fine should be

imposed to the offenders in each scenario. Table 4 presents the results of paired samples

t tests to compare subjects’ choice of fine amount for white-collar crime and street crime.

Once again, murder (M = 2.25, SD = 1.75) and rape (M = 0.35, SD = 0.96) did not

statistically differ from one another. While means for both street crimes are well under

1.00—i.e., the score meant to represent a fine under $100,000—white-collar offenses such

as selling customers a hazardous product (M = 1.83, SD = 1.72), dumping toxic waste

above the legal limit (M = 2.25, SD = 1.75), or being negligent in implementing proper

safety measures in the workplace and denying risk and peril (MD = 1.78, SD = 1.82)

elicited average fine amounts ranging between $100,000 and $499,000.

Large and statistically significant differences were found between the murder scenario

and those that described the defective toy (t = -16.99, p \ .01, d = -0.84), deadly pollutants (t = -21.51, p \ .01, d = -1.06), and asbestos exposure (t = -15.77, p \ .01, d = -0.78). Similar differences were found between rape and consumer safety violation (t = -17.44, p \ .01, d = -0.86), toxic dumping (t = -21.68, p \ .01, d = -1.07), and the reckless endangerment of employees (t = -16.99, p \ .01, d = -0.84). While the defective toy scenario slightly differed from the deadly pollutants

one (t = -5.21, p \ .01, d = -0.26), it was not statistically different from the asbestos vignette. Conversely, the work-related disease scenario elicited a smaller fine amount

compared with the toxic dumping scenario (t = -5.53, p \ .01, d = -0.27). In short, it seems that subjects were more inclined to choose a higher fine amount against white-collar

Table 4 Results of paired samples t tests to compare subjects’ choice of fine amount for white-collar crime and street crime (N = 408)

Baseline Mean (SD) Toy Murder Pollutants Rape

Toy 1.83 (1.72) – – – –

Murder 0.35 (0.98) 16.99** – – –

Pollutants 2.25 (1.75) 25.21** 221.51** – –

Rape 0.35 (0.96) 17.44** 0.22 21.68** –

Asbestos 1.78 (1.82) 0.65 215.77** 5.53** 216.99**

A mean of 0 = No fine, 1 = Under $100,000, 2 = $100,000–499,000, 3 = $500,000–1,000,000, and 4 = Above $1,000,000

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A… 135

123

offenders (particularly the company responsible for polluting over the legal limit) than they

were against the murderer and rapist.

In summation, respondents in this study were more prone to recommend higher financial

sanctions against those responsible in the white-collar crime vignettes. While supporting

greater economic sanctions against white-collar crime than street crime seems logical,

what remains to be seen is whether respondents chose to punish white-collar offenders and

street offenders with equally long prison sentences.

Prison Sentence

Table 5 presents the results of paired samples t tests to compare mean prison sentence

severity for white-collar crime and street crime. In other words, does the nature of the

crime described in each scenario (i.e., white-collar or traditional offense) influence sub-

jects’ decision regarding how much, if any, prison time the perpetrators should serve?

Although not originally given as a response option, capital punishment is nonetheless

included here since a few subjects were punitive enough to require a death sentence for

murder (M = 4.68, SD = 1.63), corporate negligence and denial of risk and peril in the

case of asbestos exposure (M = 1.35, SD = 1.79), and rape (M = 3.26, SD = 1.57). Such

recommendation belies a lack of knowledge about the criminal justice system since sexual

assault is no longer punishable by death.

Both street crimes elicited longer prison sentence lengths ranging between 11 and

30 years than did white-collar crimes for which the average prison sentence did not exceed

5 years. Compared with homicide, a majority of respondents did not perceive incarceration

to be the most appropriate punishment for the offenses involving the defective toy

(M = 0.84, SD = 1.18, t = -40.20, p \ .01, d = -1.99), illegal toxic dumping (M = 0.94, SD = 1.32, t = -38.32, p \ .01, d = -1.90), and even lying about the link between unprotected asbestos exposure and lung cancer (t = -29.45, p \ .01, d = -1.46). Further, Cohen’s effect sizes suggested large practical significance.

Mean prison sentence severity was also statistically higher in the murder scenario than

in the rape vignette (t = 16.75, p \ .01, d = 0.83), although the difference is less pro- nounced than with white-collar offenses. Rape invited higher prison sentence severity than

did consumer safety violation (t = 26.39, p \ .01, d = 1.31), toxic dumping (t = 24.79, p \ .01, d = 1.23), and the reckless endangerment of employees (t = 18.13, p \ .01, d = 0.90). Further differences emerged between the three instances of white-collar crime,

Table 5 Results of paired samples t tests to compare mean prison sentence severity for white-collar crime and street crime (N = 408)

Baseline Mean (SD) Toy Murder Pollutants Rape

Toy 0.84 (1.18) – – – –

Murder 4.68 (1.63) 240.20** – – –

Pollutants 0.94 (1.32) -1.56 38.32** – –

Rape 3.26 (1.57) 226.39** 16.75** 224.79** –

Asbestos 1.35 (1.79) 25.90** 29.45** 25.48** 18.13**

A mean of 0 = No prison, 1 = 1–5 years, 2 = 6–10 years, 3 = 11–20 years, 4 = 21–30 years, 5 = 31–40 years, 6 = 41-Life, and 7 = Death

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

136 C. Michel

123

with the defective toy scenario eliciting less prison severity than the asbestos exposure

vignette (t = -5.90, p \ .01, d = -0.29), but not statistically differing from the deadly pollutants scenario. Conversely, toxic dumping invited a shorter prison sentence than did

the reckless endangerment of employees (t = -5.48, p \ .01, d = -0.27). In summation, respondents were overall less punitive toward the white-collar crime

offenders described in these scenarios compared with violent street crime criminals, which

also brings support to the second hypothesis under investigation.

Discussion

The present study sought to address a limitation commonly observed in several recent

national surveys of public sentiments about white-collar crime. More precisely, those

studies (e.g., Huff et al. 2010; Kane and Wall 2006; Rebovich et al. 2000) disputed the

notion of public indifference about white-collar offenses after subjects evinced equal or

greater perceived seriousness of, and punitiveness toward, them compared with street

crime. Nevertheless, these results may have been obtained partly because of method-

ological choices that focused on non-violent examples of traditional crime for comparison

purposes. As the present study reveals, using vignettes that depicted violent forms of street

crime (i.e., forcible rape and robbery/homicide) led the participants to display less negative

attitudes toward white-collar offenses, even physically harmful activities that caused

injury, illness, or death. Phrased differently, both hypotheses that subjects should evince

(1) lesser perceived seriousness of harmful white-collar crimes compared with violent

street crimes, and (2) lesser punitiveness toward the perpetrators of harmful white-collar

offenses compared with violent street offenders, were supported.

These findings suggest that prior studies’ conclusions regarding a reversal of public

opinions about white-collar crime may have been too optimistic. While Americans are

undoubtedly sensitive about crimes of the powerful and consider these activities to be

dangerous and deserving of stiff punishments—which should come as no surprise after a

decade of high-scale corporate scandals (Cullen et al. 2009)—violent street offenses still

seem to elicit a more pronounced societal response.

The exact parameters of this difference remain obscure. For example, it is unclear

whether perceived crime seriousness was necessarily due to the physical harmfulness of the

crimes described in these vignettes. As expected, white-collar crime scenarios for which

victims incurred the most harm were deemed the most serious. Consider the defective toy

scenario, which only alluded to a potential risk. Unsurprisingly, it was deemed less serious

than the toxic dumping vignette, which referred to people falling ‘‘seriously ill’’, or the

asbestos exposure scenario, in which the words ‘‘cancer’’ and ‘‘deaths’’ were mentioned.

Nevertheless, the forcible rape scenario was judged more negatively than all three

examples of white-collar crime, including the asbestos exposure vignette in which

employees were said to have died from a lethal disease contracted in the workplace. This is

surprising since, despite the violent nature of sexual assault, no mention of death was

made. It is possible that contextual details influenced respondents’ attitudes. The fictional

rape victim was assaulted in her own bedroom, which might have made the crime appear

even more frightening. Delayed victimization is a common characteristic of white-collar

crime (Albanese 1995; Friedrichs 2010; Weisburd and Schlegel 1992). For example, work-

related diseases may take years before being diagnosed and attributed to one’s professional

activity. Consequently, they may not elicit the same amount of shock and fear as street

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A… 137

123

crime, which might in turn explain this study sample’s lower level of perceived seriousness

of such offenses.

Alternatively, it could be that the offender’s status outranked harmfulness in inviting

negative attitudes among the respondents. Subjects were more likely to perceive murder

and forcible rape as offenses of greater seriousness to be prosecuted in a criminal court and

punished with longer prison terms compared with three examples of corporate crime. Such

findings persisted even after controlling for harm intensity. Again, the scenario that

described a corporation failing to protect its workers from dangerous toxic contamination

and denying its responsibility when they developed and died from fatal diseases contracted

in the workplace met with less popular disapproval than did sexual assault, regardless of

the fact that no mention was made of the rape victim dying. Perhaps public opprobrium is

more likely to be triggered by the disreputable label usually attached to lower-class

offenders (Hagan 1994). Conversely, white-collar criminals’ occupational prestige (i.e.,

high educational achievements, positions of power, and desirable salaries) might command

admiration and, in turn, serve to attenuate their perceived blameworthiness.

Racial and social class bias may account for this double standard. The literature on fear

of crime is replete with studies that identified a relationship between racism and overes-

timated risks of personal victimization (e.g., Chiricos et al. 1997; Sibley 1995; Skogan

1995; Unnever et al. 2008). It is possible that prejudiced Americans trivialize the threat of

corporate violence (i.e., the calculated endangerment of employees, civilians, and cus-

tomers) because those are more commonly committed by affluent white men. Historically,

not only has this particular socio-demographic group held the reins of political power, it

has arbitrarily decreed the nature of violent crime (i.e., assault, rape, robbery and homi-

cide 1 ) and virulently prosecuted its perpetrators disproportionately comprised of minori-

ties. Unnever et al. (2008) found their African American participants to be more likely than

their white counterparts to support punitive policies against corporate swindlers. Further, in

a previous iteration of the present study (Michel et al. 2014), Hispanics were more lenient

with the street offenders described in the homicide and forcible rape scenarios. Similarly,

relatively recent studies have suggested that those with low incomes tend to judge white-

collar crime more harshly (Rebovich and Jiandani 2000; Rebovich and Kane 2002). These

attitudinal gaps could belie contestatory positions among lower-class minorities against

crimes generally committed by the very same individuals whom they consider their

oppressors.

The negative label associated with street crime and its perpetrators could also explain

why subjects were more inclined to recommend a prison sentence against the murderer and

the rapist, and mainly supported monetary sanctions against white-collar criminals. While

incapacitating dangerous lower-class felons and imposing a fine on high-status executives

perceived to be physically harmless seems logical, it should be noted that no scenario

describing white-collar crimes generated mean financial penalties even close to the max-

imum amount range (i.e., $1,000,000 and above). It is unclear whether subjects felt that

severe monetary punishments would hurt workers more than the managers (e.g., through

restructuring and termination of employment) or, alternatively, if they perceived such

action to be detrimental to business. Phrased differently, one could explain respondents’

leniency in terms of blame attribution (Heider 1958) to either dispositional factors (e.g.,

corporate offenders should be punished but they are shielded by their employees) or

situational ones (e.g., corporations have to make sacrifices, too much regulation will stifle

1 It is noteworthy that the FBI’s UCR still relies on these four indicators of violent crime and continues to

exclude corporate violence.

138 C. Michel

123

entrepreneurship, etc.). Future research may want to tease out the respective effects of

blame attribution on differences in sanctions against street crime and white-collar crime.

Limitations

A series of methodological shortcomings to this study must be addressed. First, relying on

short, unrefined and hypothetical vignettes can only yield abstract perceptions of seri-

ousness. Further, the verbiage used in the scenarios was admittedly vague and possibly

induced the same kind of bias previously observed in research on public attitudes about

white-collar crime. For example, mentioning only a ‘‘potential’’ instead of ‘‘known’’

hazard, or describing ‘‘seriously ill’’ civilians without naming specific diseases could have

indirectly lessened the perceived severity of corporate offenses among respondents.

Moreover, using the passive voice in the white-collar crime vignettes, without any indi-

cation of the signifier’s title, might have unintentionally excised the criminal actor from the

narrative. Conversely, overtly identifying responsible persons in the street crime scenarios

could have led readers to assign more culpability and punitiveness.

When reading a previous version of this study, a reviewer also took issue with the

ambiguous description of the mining company’s actions in the last vignette. More pre-

cisely, it was unclear to him/her whether the company actually attempted to silence their

own employees’ lung cancer deaths believed to be caused by occupational asbestos

exposure or only covered up the potential risk of developing lung cancer. This could have

resulted in lower perceived seriousness of, and punitiveness toward, white-collar crime.

In addition, the non-random Internet sample comprised in the majority of relatively

young and well-educated white Internet users threatens external validity. Consequently, the

present paper’s conclusions are limited in their generalizability. As noted by the afore-

mentioned reviewer, younger, more privileged Internet users are more likely to be dis-

tanced by socio-economic status, geography, and emotional connectedness from the kinds

of labor and occupational hazards associated with the industrial sector. A replication with a

larger, more representative sample is therefore warranted. At the very least, future research

should seek to target a wider and more affected audience, and include vignettes that

describe crimes committed in other industries (e.g., automobile, airline, construction,

agricultural, medical, military, etc.) so that most subjects would have an experiential

reference point from which to draw. In fact, the main limitation could be a definitional one.

What are the exact contours and limits of physically harmful white-collar crime? This

study restricted its focus to examples of corporate violence. Subsequent replications may

want to add state-corporate crime (e.g., illegal warfare and war profiteering) to their

repertoire and test the labeling hypothesis by controlling for potential socio-demographic

dissensus in blame attribution. Lastly, perhaps a more detailed and nuanced description of

the various physical, psychological, and moral harms caused by white-collar crime and

their lasting effects on the victims would invite a different societal reaction. In fact, the use

of photographs with graphic details to illustrate each vignette may help concretize the

somewhat abstract notion of harm.

Implications

This study does not have the pretension to challenge the findings of the National White-

Collar Crime Center, whose surveys have been invaluable in debunking the myth of public

apathy toward white-collar crime. The American people are not ambivalent about this

particular topic and have clearly voiced their personal disapprobation of elite offenses on

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A… 139

123

several occasions. However, the present paper’s results suggest that when comparing

violent street crime and harmful white-collar crime, the former emerges as the more

seriously perceived offense. The reason why traditional crime elicits greater fear and

punitiveness could be because white-collar crime still connotes the idea of financial rather

than physical harm. As previously mentioned, differential labeling of crime fueled by class

and racial prejudice might perpetuate such cliché. Further, by focusing almost exclusively

on non-violent cases of white-collar crime (e.g., Martha Stewart’s insider trading scandal),

the media also contributes to the propagation of misconceptions about crimes of the

powerful (Barlow and Barlow 2010). In fact, one common myth identified by Michel et al.

(2014) among their respondents was the physical harmlessness of white-collar offenses

relative to street crime, despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary (e.g., the fatal Ford

Pinto crashes, the Love Canal tragedy, the Bhopal gas leak disaster, the BP oil spill, etc.).

If official media outlets (which rely on political and corporate sponsorship) are

understandably reluctant to highlight the greater harm incurred by white-collar crime

victims, perhaps it is criminologists’ duty to reach out to the public and close the gap

between apocryphal beliefs and academic knowledge. Several studies have lamented the

dearth of white-collar crime courses offered in American universities despite the great

popularity currently enjoyed by criminology programs (Lynch et al. 2004; McGurrin et al.

2013). A collective action is needed to inform the populace about the myriad ways in

which elite crime can harm them, regardless of the aura of prestige that seems to enshrine

its perpetrators. Hypothetically, sensitizing the masses about the incalculable harmfulness

of state-corporate crime (e.g., unlawful warfare, environmental damage, etc.) could

heighten public concern and influence significant penal reform against these offenses.

Nevertheless, two major obstacles might hinder the dissemination of such information.

First, political orientation may block the acceptance of messages perceived to be antithetic

with one’s ideology. A similar phenomenon has been observed by Nyhan and colleagues in

regard to Obama’s healthcare reform (Nyhan et al. 2013), vaccine promotion (Nyhan et al.

2014), and the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (Nyhan and

Reifler 2010). Second, and perhaps more importantly, public efforts such as the National

White-Collar Crime Center survey are funded by Congress, the actions of which have been

denounced as criminal by critical criminologists (Lynch and Michalowski 2006; Mills

1956; Simon 1999). Notwithstanding the professional integrity of their initiators, white-

collar crime awareness programs might therefore be doomed to self-imposed restrictions

due to the subversive nature of their subject matter.

Compliance with Ethical Standard

Conflict of interest The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

Albanese, J. (1995). White-collar crime in America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barak, G. (Ed.). (1994). Media, process and the social construction of crime: Studies in newsmaking

criminology. New York: Garland. Barlow, D. E., & Barlow, M. H. (2010). Corporate crime news as ideology news magazine coverage of the

Enron case. Retrieved 03/01/2013 from http://files.embedit.in/embeditin/files/4gX7VfNILz/1/file.pdf. Blumstein, A., & Cohen, J. (1980). Sentencing of convicted offenders: An analysis of the public’s view. Law

and Society Review, 14, 223–262. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inex-

pensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on psychological science, 6(1), 3–5.

140 C. Michel

123

Calavita, K., Tillman, R., & Pontell, H. N. (1997). The savings and loan debacle, financial crime, and the state. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 19–38.

Carlson, J. M., & Williams, T. (1993). Perspectives on the seriousness of crimes. Social Science Research, 22(2), 190–207.

Chiricos, T., Hogan, M., & Gertz, M. (1997). Racial composition of neighborhood and fear of crime. Criminology, 35(1), 107–132.

Croall, H. (2007). Victims of white-collar and corporate crime. In P. Davies, P. Francis & C. Greer (Eds.), Victims, Crime and Society (pp. 78–108). London: Sage.

Cullen, F. T., Clark, G. A., Link, B. G., Mathers, R. A., Niedospial, J. L., & Sheahan, M. (1985a). Dissecting white-collar crime: Offense type and punitiveness. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 9(1–2), 15–28.

Cullen, F. T., Clark, G. A., Mathers, R. A., & Cullen, J. B. (1983). Public support for punishing white-collar crime: Blaming the victim revisited? Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 481–493.

Cullen, F. T., Clark, G. A., & Wozniak, J. F. (1985b). Explaining the get tough movement: Can the public be blamed? Federal Probation, 49, 16–24.

Cullen, F. T., Hartman, J. L., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Bad guys: Why the public supports punishing white- collar offenders. Crime, Law and Social Change, 51(1), 31–44.

Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., & Polanzi, C. W. (1982). The seriousness of crime revisited: Have attitudes toward white-collar crime changed? Criminology, 20, 83–102.

Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., Travis, L. F., & Wozniak, J. F. (1985c). Consensus in crime seriousness: Empirical reality or methodological artifact? Criminology, 23(1), 99–118.

Dowler, K. (2003). Media consumption and public attitudes toward crime and justice: The relationship between fear of crime, punitive attitudes, and perceived police effectiveness. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 10, 109–126.

Ericson, R., Baranck, P., & Chan, J. (1991). Visualizing deviance. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., & Dubeck, P. J. (1993). Public perceptions of corporate crime. In M.

B. Blankenship (Ed.), Understanding corporate criminality (pp. 85–114). New York: Garland. Filone, S., Strohmaier, H., Murphy, M., & DeMatteo, D. (2014). The impact of DSM-5’s alternative model

for personality disorders on criminal defendants. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(1), 135–148. Frank, J., Cullen, F. T., Travis, L. F., I. I. I., & Borntrager, J. L. (1989). Sanctioning corporate crime: How

do business executives and the public compare? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 13, 139–169. Friedrichs, D. O. (2010). Trusted criminals: White-collar crime in contemporary society. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth. Goff, C., & Nason-Clark, N. (1989). The seriousness of crime in Fredericton, New Brunswick: Perceptions

toward white-collar crime. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 31, 19–34. Grabosky, P. N., Braithwaite, J., & Wilson, P. R. (1987). The myth of community tolerance toward white-

collar crime. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 20, 33–44. Gustafson, J. L. (2007). Cracking down on white-collar crime: An analysis of the recent trend of severe

sentences for corporate officers. Suffolk University Law Review, XL(3), 865–701. Hagan, J. (1994). Crime and disrepute (Vol. 4). Beverley Hills: Sage Publications. Hans, V. P., & Ermann, D. (1989). Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law and Human

Behavior, 13, 151–166. Hauber, A. R., Toonvliet, L. C., & Willemse, A. M. (1988). The perceived seriousness of white-collar crime

and conventional crime. Corruption and Reform, 3, 41–64. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Heller, N. B., & McEwen, J. T. (1975). Applications of crime seriousness information in Police Depart-

ments. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12(1), 44–50. Herbert, R., & Landrigan, P. J. (2000). Work-related death: A continuing epidemic. American Journal of

Public Health, 90(4), 541. Holtfreter, K., Van Slyke, S., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. (2008). Public perceptions of white-collar crime and

punishment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(1), 50–60. Huff, R., Desilets, C., & Kane, J. (2010). National public survey on white-collar crime. Retrieved 10/28/

2012 from http://crimesurvey.nw3c.org/docs/nw3c2010survey.pdf. Kane, J., & Wall, A. D. (2006). The 2005 national public survey on white-collar crime. Fairmont, WV:

National White Collar Crime Center. Kennedy, J.P. (2010). Examining the impact of ethics education on business students’ perceptions of white-

collar crime. Digital Commons@Wayne State University. Kramer, R. C. (1984). Corporate criminality: The development of an idea. In E. Hoschstedler (Ed.), Cor-

porations as Criminals. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A… 141

123

Levi, M. (2006). The media construction of financial white-collar crimes. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 1037–1057.

Levi, M. (2009). Suite revenge? The shaping of folk devils and moral panics about white-collar crime. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 48–67.

Levi, M., & Jones, S. (1985). Public and police perceptions of crime seriousness in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 25(3), 234–250.

Lynch, M. J., McGurrin, D., & Fenwick, M. (2004). Disappearing act: The representation of corporate crime research in criminological literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(5), 389–398.

Lynch, M. J., & Michalowski, R. J. (2006). Primer in radical criminology (4th ed.). Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press.

Lynch, M. J., Nalla, M. K., & Miller, K. W. (1989). Cross-cultural perceptions of deviance: The case of Bhopal. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26(1), 7–35.

Lynch, M. J., Stretesky, P. B., & Hammond, P. (2000). Media coverage of chemical crimes, Hillsborough County, Florida, 1987–1997. British Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 112–126.

Maddan, S., Hartley, R. D., Walker, J. T., & Miller, J. M. (2012). Sympathy for the devil: An exploration of federal judicial discretion in the processing of white-collar offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(1), 4–18.

Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Watkins, I., Sayle, M. A., & Newell, B. R. (2013). The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: Verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect. Law and Human Behavior, 37(3), 197.

Mathieu, C., Hare, R. D., Jones, D. N., Babiak, P., & Neumann, C. S. (2013). Factor structure of the B-Scan 360: A measure of corporate psychopathy. Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 288.

McGurrin, D., Jarrell, M., Jahn, A., & Cochrane, B. (2013). White-collar crime representation in the criminological literature revisited, 2001–2010. Western Criminological Review, 14(2), 3–19.

Meier, R. F., & Short, J. F. (1985). Crime as a hazard: Perceptions of risk and seriousness. Criminology, 23, 389–399.

Michel, C., Heide, K. M., & Cochran, J. K. (2014). Sociodemographic correlates of knowledge about elite deviance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 639–660.

Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nadler, J., & McDonnell, M. H. (2011). Moral character, motive, and the psychology of blame. Cornell L.

Review, 97, 255. Newman, G. R. (1976). Comparative deviance: Perception and law in six cultures. New York: Elsevier

Scientific Publications. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political

Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A

randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), e835–e842. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Ubel, P. A. (2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform.

Medical Care, 51(2), 127–132. O’Connell, M., & Whelan, A. (1996). Taking wrong seriously: Public perceptions of crime seriousness.

British Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 299–318. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. (2010). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk.

Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419. Perri, F. S. (2011). White-collar criminals: The ‘Kinder, Gentler’ offender? Journal of Investigative Psy-

chology and Offender Profiling, 8(3), 217–241. Piquero, N. L., Carmichael, S., & Piquero, A. R. (2008). Assessing the perceived seriousness of white-collar

and street crimes. Crime and Delinquency, 54, 291–312. Rebovich, D. J., & Jiandani, J. (2000). The national public survey on white-collar crime. Richmond, VA:

National White-Collar Crime Center. Rebovich, D. J., & Kane, J. L. (2002). An eye for an eye in the electronic age: Gauging public attitudes

toward white-collar crime and punishment. Journal of Economic Crime Management, 1, 1–19. Rebovich, D. J., Layne, J., Jiandani, J., & Hage, S. (2000). The national public survey on white collar crime.

Morgantown, WV: National White Collar Crime Center. Reiman, J. (1998). The rich get richer and the poor get prison. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2010). The rich get richer and the poor get prison; Ideology, class, and criminal

justice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Roberts, J. V., & Doob, A. N. (1990). News media influences on public views of sentencing. Law and

Human Behavior, 14, 451–468. Ross, E. A. (1907). Sin and society: An analysis of latter-day iniquity. New York: Harper and Row.

142 C. Michel

123

Rossi, P. H., & Berk, R. A. (1997). Just punishments: Federal guidelines and public views compared. Transaction Publishers.

Rossi, P. H., Waite, E., Bose, C. E., & Berk, R. E. (1974). The seriousness of crimes: Normative structure and individual differences. American Sociological Review, 39, 224–237.

Roth, J. A. (1978). Prosecutor perceptions of crime seriousness. The Journal of Criminal Law and Crimi- nology, 69(2), 232–242.

Schoepfer, A., Carmichael, S., & Piquero, N. L. (2007). Do perceptions of punishment vary between white- collar and street crimes? Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(2), 151–163.

Schrager, L. S., & Short, J. F. (1980). How serious a crime? Perceptions of organizational and common crimes (pp. 14–31). White-collar crime: Theory and research.

Scott, J. E., & Al-Thakeb, F. (1977). The public’s perception of crime: A comparative analysis of Scan- dinavia, Western Europe, the Middle East and the United States. In C. Huff (Ed.), Contemporary corrections. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sellin, T., & Wolfgang, M. E. (1964). The measurement of delinquency. New York: Riley. Sibley, D. (1995). Geographies of exclusion: Society and difference in the west. London: Routledge. Simon, D. (1999). Elite deviance. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Skogan, W. G. (1995). Crime and the racial fears of white Americans. The Annals of the American Academy

of Political and Social Science, 539, 59–71. Starfield, B. (2000). Is U.S. health really best in the world? American Medical Association, vol. 284, no. 4.

Retrieved 10/29/2012 from http://www.jhsph.edu/sebin/s/k/2000_JAMA_Starfield.pdf. Surette, R. (1998). Media, crime, and criminal justice: Images and realities (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Press. Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White-collar crime. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Thomas, C. W., Cage, R. J., & Foster, S. C. (1976). Public opinion on criminal law and legal sanctions: An

examination of two conceptual models. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 67, 110–116. Tillman, R., & Pontell, H. (1992). Is justice ‘collar-blind?’ Punishing medicaid provider fraud. Criminology,

30, 547–574. Uniform Crime Reports. (2011). Retrieved 10/29/2012 from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr. Unnever, J. D., Benson, M. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2008). Public support for getting tough on corporate crime:

Racial and political divides. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45, 163–190. Warr, M. (1989). What is the perceived seriousness of crimes? Criminology, 27, 795–821. Weisburd, D., & Schlegel, K. (1992). Returning to the mainstream: Reflections on past and future white

collar crime study. In K. Schlegel & D. Weisburd (Eds.), White-collar crime reconsidered (pp. 352–365). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Wheeler, S., Weisburd, D., Waring, E., & Bode, N. (1988). White-collar crimes and criminals. American Criminal Law Review, 25, 331–357.

Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., Tracy, P. E., & Singer, S. I. (1985). The national survey of crime severity. U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A… 143

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.