Conventional Crime Vs Corporate Crime

Defining the meaning of corporate crime and describing its features will allow for a comparison with conventional crime. This will require a detailed description of conventional crimes and examples which will enable me to demonstrate how corporate crime differs from conventional crime and how corporate crime challenges the conventional definitions of crime.

Corporate Crime

The key to understanding a corporate crime is having a description which is ‘illegal acts or omissions, punishable by the state under administrative, civil or criminal law, which are the result of deliberate decision making or culpable negligence within a legitimate formal organisation’ (Pearce and Tombs, 1998: 107-10). This quote shows corporate crime as crimes which

A conventional crime for instance a murder, robbery or rape has a clear victim therefore it is easier to notice the impact of the crime on the individual. Corporate crime does not have a direct victim, in fact most victims of corporate crime will not know the crime is taking place. Croall (2009:81) writes "Victimization is indirect and impersonal", An example of this was the mis-selling of Payment Protection Insurance where the victims were unaware they were even being sold PPI, such cases show the complexities related with the victims of corporate crime as they are not aware the crime is taking place. Victims of corporate crimes may not even feel the impact of the crimes against them for instance a two pence charge taken monthly from their account may seem relatively harmless however if this was happening to millions of people the corporate criminal would be making a fortune from what would be perceived as small change to people. Corporate crime covers a large amount of crimes and it is important to mention some crimes do have direct victims similar to conventional crimes for example the the deaths of 21 pensioners from E.coli 0157 in Wishaw, Lanarkshire, in 1997 when a butcher neglected standard food safety procedures. This case demonstrates some cases of corporate crime, similar to conventional crime have clear and direct victims. The significant

(McLaughlin,Muncie and Hughes 2003:144) writes "a Labourer is 14 times more likely to go to prison than a professional" this emphasizes my point showing how corporate criminals challenge the ideas of conventional criminals as they tend to be well-educated and are not perceived as potential criminals in society. Understanding a conventional crime and the criminal who has committed it, is straightforward however the same can not be said for corporate crimes. Corporate criminals are usually individuals of upper socio-economic class who are well educated and violate the criminal law by breaching the trust placed upon them during their business activities (Whyte,2009:187). The corporate criminal challenges the conventional definitions of a criminal who is perceived to be “ignorant and stupid” and are instead “deceptive and suave”(Whyte,2009:187). An example of this is Jordan Belfont a smart, suave business-man who managed to makes millions with his illegitimate business activities, such criminals are portrayed as intelligent and cunning who do not present a direct threat to the public. The same can not be said for conventional criminals for example a burglar who will have a social stigma attached to them albeit their crimes have cost a lot less than those of a conventional criminal. The conventional criminals