NCJ Number
82795
Journal
Crime and Delinquency Volume: 28 Issue: 2 Dated: (April 1982) Pages: 292-314
Date Published
1982
Length
23 pages
Annotation
This paper suggests that corporate crime represents a more feasible and significant target for crime control than traditional crime because the two are conceptually different phenomena with differing responses to deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.
Abstract
Traditional criminal offenses are more readily apparent than corporate crimes. However, once an offense becomes apparent, it is easier to apprehend a corporate than a traditional suspect, but more difficult to establish guilt. As a result, the reactive model of crime control must be discarded for a proactive enforcement stance. White-collar criminals are easily deterred because they are not committed to crime as a way of life and act rationally rather than spontaneously or emotionally. Moreover, incapacitation is effective with corporate criminals because they must maintain their legitimacy to conduct business. Rehabilitating corporations is easier than reforming individuals because the corporation lends itself readily to regulatory control. However, although corporate crime is potentially more preventable and its victims are more readily compensated, there is no guarantee that either prevention or restitution will occur, because corporate cases tend to be complex and convictions are extremely difficult. Under present law, regulatory agencies should achieve the goals of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation by nonprosecutorial means (i.e., through adverse publicity). Footnotes are included.