White-Collar and Corporate Wrong-Doings

394). Gomme (1994) maintains that Sutherland's initial conceptualization of the gaberdine collar as indicative of high status is somewhat outmoded, because today, umpteen jobs requiring a white shirt and tie atomic number 18 not prestigious; nevertheless, the concept is valuable for two reasons: (1) it enables a distinction between melodic line and street villainy; and (2) it intromits that offensive is not confined to the lower classes (p. 394).

It is important to note that "business crime" or "white-collar crime" atomic number 18 misnomers as far as some criminologists are concerned. Gomme (1993) states their belief that "many white-collar crimes are not really crimes at all, tho activities that large numbers of merchants, professionals, and business merchants consider 'sharp' business practices that are at worst unethical. Unless the law specifically prohibits certain tactics, these critics say, they cannot be called crimes" (p. 394).

Gomme (1993) notes, "in white-collar or professional crime, high-status workers engage in violations directly for their own benefit" (p. 395). In contrast, corporate crime "involves employees carrying out corporate illegalities on behalf of the corporation and in congruity with formally specified corporate goals" (Gomme, 1993,

p. 395). In his "Corporate Punishment," Daniel Farber (1989), a law professor at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, maintains that many white-collar crimes are move on behalf of corporations--that corporations should be punished for crimes by putting them on probation or by imposing stiff fines. He cites the frustrtion of an incline judge two centuries ago who lamented that a corporation "has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked" (p. 174). In an era of insider trading and Pentagon scandals, the problem is more pressing than ever. When a corporation violates the law, how is it to be punished?

Instrumental Marxists particularly sacrifice the ruling class as "a unified and massive fond group" (Gomme, 1993, p. 127).

Structural Marxists maintain that the state enjoys a degree of autonomy as a result of an elect(ip) group which does not always directly serve elite interests (i.e., the elite is fractionalized). Structural Marxists do not perceive the state as either unified or conspiratorial. Regardless of whether one is an submissive or structural Marxist, Gomme (1993) presents the argument that Marxist system is faint-hearted and untestable (p. 125). However, is it more untestable than either differential necktie or intimidation theory? The answer is a probable no. hearty scientists are still explaining "ex post facto," or, "after the fact," with realise to social phenomena. As Gomme (1993) has pointed out concerning differential association theory, since social scientists are examining "after the fact," the question is, "which comes first--membership in deviant groups, or deviant behaviour" (p. 60). Thus, the problem with differential association theory, then, is that it fails to acknowledge that "deviants may seek out persons with similar predispositions" (Gomme, 1993, p. 60). Marxist theory is neither more nor less untestable than either differential association theory or deterrence theory.

The theory of differential association, or
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.