|
Answer
|
Hint
|
|
Interactionism
|
This sociological perspective has not had much to say about white-collar and corporate crime, but Nelken suggests these offences are more likely to escape labelling as 'criminal' because they are often similar to normal business practices.
|
|
Robert Merton (1938)
|
This functionalist sociologist argues that the main cause of working-class crime are blocked opportunities for working-class people, leading them to turn to innovation (one of his modes of adaptation in strain theory) for success.
|
|
Travis Hirschi (1969)
|
This functionalist sociologist looks at why people don't commit crime - even though we all possess the hedonistic drive to act in the kinds of selfish and aggressive ways that lead to criminal behaviour - however, the 4 social bonds: attachment, commitment, involvement and belief, stop us from committing deviant or criminal acts.
In reference to working-class crime, it could be argued many in the working-class don't have or have little of: -Attachments as they may be demonised by society. -Commitments as they are more likely to be unemployed or in a low-paying, unfulfilling job. -Involvement in society due to a lack of funds and time -Beliefs which align with the rule of law, potentially as they blame it for their deprivation.
Therefore, it means working-class people are more likely to commit crime. |
|
Marxism
|
This sociological perspective argues that the push to corporate crime is driven by criminogenic capitalism: -The need to maintain profits in an increasingly global market means that, if this cannot be achieved legally, then illegal means will be used. -This leads to crimes such as industrial espionage; price fixing; lying about losses to avoid hitting share prices and upsetting investors; concealment of profits to avoid taxation; deceiving consumers by fraud, misleading advertising, and the sale of dangerous or unsafe products - or the export to developing countries of products that fail safety tests in their own countries, such as happens with drug companies who continue to sell drugs in developing countries which are either banned at home or out-of-date.
Many sociologists from this perspective also suggest that working-class crime is recorded on a higher frequency than ruling-class crime is, giving the impression that the working-class commits more crime. |
|
Lea & Young (1984)
|
These Left Realist sociologists argue, that to understand and tackle crime, it is necessary to examine the inter-relationships between the 4 elements of the square of crime: -Social structural influences and formal control by the state. -Offenders - what motivates them? Why do they choose crime? -The public and extent of informal social control. -Victims - why do people become victims, and how do they respond to it?
Working-class people may commit crime due to feeling relatively deprived and feeling marginalised by the state (education system, police, etc.). If there is a deviant subculture in a working-class community, there will be some who are normalised to crime and/or others too afraid to report it. People within their own communities are more likely to fall victim to crime. |
|
Hazel Croall (2007)
|
This Interactionist sociologist notes corporate crime is often not accompanied by a direct intent to cause harm - for example, breaches of health and safety or the dumping of toxic waste are not deliberately intended to kill or injure people, even if this is the effect, and so they appear less criminal than offences like burglary.
|
|
Albert Cohen (1955)
|
This functionalist sociologist approaches 'strain' as a group phenomenon - focusing on working-class boys: -They experience anomie as a result of the middle-class education system - having cultural deprivation and lacking the skills to achieve. -Since they can't achieve status through legitimate means of education and receive a low status, they suffer from status frustration. -Thus, a response to this is the formation of subcultures or gangs with values that were largely the reverse of mainstream values. -What is deemed taboo or deviant in mainstream society is praiseworthy and good in the subculture. -Likewise what is considered praiseworthy in mainstream culture is deviant and discouraged in the subculture. |
|
Frank Pearce (1976)
|
This Marxist sociologist describes crimes committed by the ruling-class as 'the crimes of the powerful', which are some of the biggest crimes but are rarely prosecuted.
|
|
Edwin Sutherland (1949)
|
This sociologist was one of the first to show that crime was spread through all sections of society and defined white-collar crime as, 'a crime committed by a person of high social status and respectability in the course of his occupation': -He argued that many crimes committed by these 'respectable' people remain undetected, unreported and therefore escape being labelled as criminal acts. -He also argued that if people associate with others who take part in illegal activities, they are more likely to do so themselves - either for financial gain (white-collar crime) or to benefit the business (corporate crime). |
|
Cloward & Ohlin (1960)
|
These functionalist sociologists don't believe every disgruntled working-class boy turns to 'innovation': -This is because there are different types of deviant subcultures, which respond in different ways due to there existing unequal access to illegitimate opportunities, as well as unequal access to legitimate opportunities. -Different neighbourhoods provide different illegitimate opportunities. -Criminal Subculture: Organised crime (e.g. the mafia) where career criminals can socialise youths into their own criminal career that might result in material success (often in cities). -Conflict Subculture: Gangs organised by young people themselves, often based on claiming territory from other gangs in so‐called "turf wars" (often in big towns/small cities). -Retreatist Subculture: Those who are unable to access either legitimate or illegitimate
opportunity structures might drop out altogether (as Merton said) but might do so as a group rather than individually (can be anywhere, usually small towns). These groups might abuse drugs, for example. |
|
Taylor, Watson & Young (1973)
|
These Neo-Marxist sociologists argue in 'The New Criminology' that to fully understand crime, it is necessary to use both structural and interactionist approaches, leading to a blending of Marxism and Interactionism/Labelling theory: -They state, that what should be considered is the power structure of society, the immediate cause impact and societal reaction of the deviant act, its 'macro' background and the impact of that reaction. -Furthermore, they argue criminals are 'political heroes' - could be seen with riots (interpreted as ones against the ruling-class), such as the 2011 London Riots. |
|
William Chambliss (1978)
|
This Marxist sociologist found in his Seattle study that law enforcement was selective, with mainly members of the ruling-class facilitating each other's crimes: -This gives the impression that most crime is committed by the working-class, diverting attention away from the ruling class and thus placing the blame on individuals. |
|
David Nelken (2012)
|
This Interactionist sociologist points out powerful individuals or corporations employ accountants and lawyers to develop techniques of neutralisation in order to redefine their crimes as non-criminal oversights, mistakes or errors, rather than as deliberate attempts to break the law. This avoidance of the attachment of the label of 'criminal to white-collar and corporate offences can encourage further crimes by reducing the risks associated with offending.
|
|
Timmer & Eitzen (1989)
|
These Marxist sociologists described white-collar and corporate crimes committed in the suites of offices and boardrooms of the businesses of the middle classes as 'crimes in the suites', in contrast to the more familiar and visible everyday 'crimes in the streets', such as the violent crime and property crimes more associated with working-class offending.
|
|
Charles Murray (1990)
|
This Right Realist sociologist argues socialisation in the nuclear family will prevent crime - it is caused by the emergence of an underclass or 'new rabble' consisting of lone-parent families who don't provide positive role models (especially male role models) and are dependent on the welfare state: -What he describes as the underclass or 'new rabble' is working-class people who aren't living in nuclear families nor are permanently in employment (arguably leading to a reliance on benefits, acting as a deterrence to finding employment). |
