ISSN 1062-7421
Vol. 12 No. 8 (August 2002) pp. 454-463
CORPORATE CRIME, LAW, AND SOCIAL CONTROL by Sally S. Simpson. Cambridge University Press, 2002. 180 pp.
Cloth $55.00. ISBN: 0-521-58083-8. Paper $21.00. ISBN 0-521-58933-9.
Reviewed by David T. Johnson, Department of Sociology, University of Hawaii.
This timely book addresses a timeless question: What is the capacity of the criminal law to prevent and control
illegality (p. 4)? The book is timely because the illegality on which it focuses is CORPORATE CRIME, defined as
"the conduct of a corporation, or of employees acting on behalf of a corporation, which is proscribed and
punishable by law" (p. 6), and because the current crisis in American capitalism is mainly a matter of corporate
crime. The flood of scandals in the United States--Enron, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom, Qwest, Tyco, Adelphia, Merrill
Lynch, Lehman Brothers, KMPG, Global Crossing, Xerox, J P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, AOL Time Warner, Harken, Halliburton,
etc.--features executives who repeatedly have betrayed the marketplace and the law in favor of their own short-term
self-interest. The WALL STREET JOURNAL says that the scope and scale of corporate transgressions "exceed
anything the U. S. has witnessed since the years preceding the Great Depression."
The most popular response to these corporate crimes resembles the one-size-fits-all reaction to conventional crime
that governments in the U. K. and U. S. A. have pushed for the last 30 years: more punishment (Coleman 2002:
231; Garland 2001). In July 2002, a Harris Poll found that 82 percent of Americans support "tough new laws"
to reduce or prevent corporate fraud. President George W. Bush proposed doubling the severity of some fraud sanctions
(from 5 years to 10), telling business leaders "We can't pass a law that says 'You will be honest' but "We
can pass laws that say 'If you're not honest we'll get you.'" The Senate then voted 97-0 to pass a bill that
called the President's ante and raised the penalty for fraud from 10 years to 25. A number of senators said privately
that there are a "lot of things" they do not like about the bill but that they voted for it anyway
because "nobody wants to get in front of that [get-tough] train." Richard Breeden, former chairman of
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), argues that "Criminal sanctions are essential when you're dealing
with people in the income level of CEOs and [chief financial officers] of major companies. If somebody is making
$105 million a year, for him to consent to an injunction from the SEC that he won't do it again doesn't create
adequate deterrence. You've got to put him in jail." Even William Lerach, a plaintiff's lawyer feared and
reviled by business for bringing hundreds of shareholder suits against Fortune 500 companies, believes "the
most effective reform is sending executives to prison," not the class-action litigation that he undertakes
(Greider 2002). Many scholars have boarded the punishment bandwagon as well. James Cox, for example, a professor
of law at Duke University, says that, "We're not going to get the attention of corporate
Page 455 begins here
America until we hear the click of the jail door on the backsides of some of these executives who are manipulating
the numbers." On July 29, President Bush promised to produce more of the requisite clicks. The next day
he signed the corporate responsibility bill into law, praising it as "the most far-reaching reform of American
business practice since the time of FDR" and promising that there would be "no more easy money for
corporate criminals, just hard time." Attorney General John Ashcroft reinforced the message by declaring
that "corporate executives are no better than common thieves when they betray their employees and steal from
their investors."
If the core claim in Sally Simpson's book is true then all of these views are misguided, for the criminal sanction
can do little to deter corporate crime and, perversely, it can even amplify deviance.
The focus of Simpson's book is also timeless, because jurists and scholars long have wondered what good the criminal
sanction can do (Packer 1968) and because corporate power is likely to increase as societies become increasingly
"asymmetric" (Beatty 2001). As James S. Coleman (1974) observed, there are natural persons and there
are corporate persons and the interests and influence of the latter are becoming more and more dominant. In America
alone, 22 corporations have market capitalizations that exceed the gross domestic product of Spain, and around
the world 51 of the 100 largest economies are controlled by companies, not countries (Mitchell 2001). At least
among criminologists there is an emerging consensus that corporate crime and violence inflict far more damage
on society than all street crimes combined (Mokhiber and Weissman 1999; Coleman 2002; Stone 1975). A recent FBI
report found that the combined costs of burglary
and robbery are around $4 billion per year. By comparison, W. Steve Albrecht, an accounting professor at Brigham
Young University, estimates the annual
cost of white-collar fraud to be about $200 billion (Press 1996). Similarly, the General Accounting Office has
estimated that the cost of the Savings and Loan bailout will exceed (in 1990 dollars) the cost of waging the
Korean War by about 60 percent (Zimring and Hawkins 1993: 253). Since questions about corporate-crime control
are among the most important and under-researched issues in all of socio-legal studies, this new book is welcome
indeed.
Simpson begins by lamenting "the woeful lack of research on corporate deterrence" (p. ix), yet chapters
one through six of her eight-chapter book are devoted to summarizing extant studies about: the criminalization
of corporate crime in the post-Watergate era (chapter 1), the deterrent effects of criminal law for conventional
and corporate crime (chapter 2), the reasons that criminal sanctions "fail to deter corporations and their
managers from violating the law" (chapter 3), the capacity of civil law (chapter 4) and government regulations
(chapter 5) to deter corporate crime, and the best alternative to criminalization--"cooperative models of
corporate compliance" such as John Braithwaite's "pyramid of enforcement" (chapter 6).
Chapter 7 presents Simpson's own empirical test of two modes of controlling corporate misconduct: "criminalization
versus cooperation." It is based on two "factorial surveys" (experimentally manipulated vignettes-in-surveys)
administered to MBA students and business executives in 1993 and 1998. The vignettes describe four crime scenarios--price-fixing,
sales fraud, bribery, and the violation of environmental standards--about which respondents were asked to assess
the
Page 456 begins here
depicted criminal behavior and legal responses to it and to state what their own "offending propensity"
would be if they were placed in circumstances like those described in the scenarios. Chapter 8 concludes by stating
that "corporate crime control strategies based solely in a deterrence framework are unlikely to work--especially
those that emphasize severe punishments instead of more certain and modest ones" (p. 154). Criminalization
approaches to corporate-crime control are therefore "bad science" and "bad policy" (p. 159).
This short work has many merits. Simpson's knowledge of the deterrence literature is comprehensive, and she
consistently demonstrates a knack for succinctly summarizing research findings. Among other gems, her critique
of standard assumptions about "managerial rationality" is concise, lucid, and constructive (p. 57).
Several findings surprise and intrigue, particularly the discovery that "corporate offending is attractive
sensually to potential offenders" (p. 151). In this respect, company managers resemble the shoplifters and
"badass" robbers who enjoy the emotional rewards of offending (Katz 1988). More practically, Simpson's
four-part review of answers to the question "what works to deter corporate crime?" (chapters 3-6) will
be a useful reference both for scholars just entering this field and for veteran researchers designing new studies.
Her own survey approach to measuring why companies obey the law could (and should) be replicated in other corporate
environments.
Although I agree with much of the analysis in this good book, I have five reservations. First, there seems to
be an internal inconsistency between Simpson's assertion that "criminalization" fails to deter crime
and the evidence presented in the text. Second, corporate crime has not been as highly "criminalized"
as the author supposes. Third, some of Simpson's arguments are unhelpfully narrow. In particular, her focus on
deterrence leaves out important and related questions about fairness, just deserts, symbolic politics, and law-making.
Fourth, Simpson's own research suggests that corporate managers are more "criminally committed" than
the author acknowledges. And fifth, there is a misfit between Simpson's broad definition of corporate crime and
the narrow target of most criminal sanctions.
My first reservation concerns an inconsistency in Simpson's argument about what works to deter corporate crime.
In chapter two she notes that the deterrence doctrine reemerged in the late 1960s, spawning two distinct types
of research. OBJECTIVE DETERRENCE STUDIES use aggregate data to assess the relationship between actual punishments
and levels of crime, while PERCEPTUAL DETERRENCE STUDIES assess how subjective judgments of punishment influence
the criminality of individuals (p. 27). Unfortunately, little research of either kind has been conducted about
corporate crime. Simpson reviews five objective studies and four perceptual ones before concluding that the evidence
about corporate-crime deterrence is "equivocal" (p. 42) and fraught with "contradictory
findings" (p. 43). She ends chapter 2 by stating that "punitive policy recommendations based in a deterrence
framework" must be called "premature" (p. 44).
This conclusion seems properly prudent; I take it to mean that the research record speaks so little and so uncertainly
about the power of criminal law to deter
Page 457 begins here
corporate crime that one cannot tell how well it works. On the very next page (p. 45), however, Simpson changes
course, by beginning chapter three with a question based on a far more confident premise: Why does the criminal
law FAIL to deter corporations and their managers from violating the law? Chapter 2 does not demonstrate failure,
but in the rest of the book the author writes as if it has (pp. 60, 98, 154, 158). This slip between (a) the recognition
that one cannot discern from the data whether criminal sanctions deter and (b) the conviction that criminal law
does not work is large and unexplained. More importantly, it casts doubt on
some of the major inferences made in chapters three through eight.
The misfit between evidence and assertion further suggests that "theological" thinking about crime control
may be as big a problem in corporate criminology as it is in analyses of conventional crime (Walker 1994: 15).
Some of Simpson's assertions bespeak the triumph of faith over facts (pp. 1, 4, 10, 16, 45, 98, 122, 145). Though
her beliefs may be sound, it is impossible to tell from the text because the empirical evidence is too thin, complicated,
and conflicted (pp. 35, 42, 66, 78,
86, 90, 93, 97, 103, 111, 115).
In the absence of a compelling research record that punishment fails to deter, it is easy to find justification
for either pro- or anti-criminalization views. On the one hand, the criminal sanction has severely limited capacity
to control street crime (Currie 1998). Since prosecutors face formidable problems of proof with many white-collar
offenses, one could reasonably suppose that its power to deter corporate crime cannot be any better. On the other
hand, since corporations are
fundamentally different than you and me-they have perpetual life, they can be in two or more places at once, they
cannot be jailed, and so on-the conventional wisdom about street crime may need to be inverted with respect to
corporate crime (Braithwaite and Geis 1989). In short, there is a great deal that nobody knows about what works
to control corporate crime. The more vigorously Simpson pushes her claim that "criminal law is an ineffective
and inefficient deterrent for corporate criminals" (p. 60), the more the ambiguous research record recedes
into the background.
A more fundamental premise of this book also merits scrutiny. It is chapter one's supposition that corporate
misconduct has been heavily "criminalized" in the years since Watergate. Simpson argues that today "there
is substantial overlap between conventional and white-collar crime control" (p. 2), and she quotes approvingly
another scholar's claim that "the U. S. government has been locked into a predominantly punitive strategy"
of corporate-crime control (p. 158). These assertions are
basic to the book's argument because they form the target against which Simpson contends that "in most cases
cooperative models work best with most
corporate offenders" (p. i). Although some scholars agree that cooperation works better than criminalization
(Braithwaite 2001; Kagan 2001; Grabosky 1995), there is a twofold problem in Simpson's presentation. First, her
review of "the facts of criminalization" is thin and unconvincing (p. 16). If evidence exists to substantiate
her assertion that corporate conduct has been heavily criminalized, you will not find much of it in this book.
The "if" that begins the last sentence is a big one. In their surveys of criminology students, for
example, Ermann and Lundman (2002: 3) find that white-collar crime is not nearly as salient an issue as Simpson
supposes (p. 10). When their
Page 458 begins here
students were asked to "list three crimes you think are serious, troublesome, and worth trying to do something
about," only 2 percent of responses directed attention to corporate crimes.
The second defect in Simpson's "criminalization" claim is more subtle. Law has a direction in social
space, and throughout human history "downward law" (law directed at the poor, powerless, and unconnected)
has been stronger than "upward law" aimed at wealthy, powerful actors such as corporations (Black 1976).
Though Simpson's assertion that the intensity of some upward law has increased seems to be correct (Coleman 2002:
226), this does not mean (as the author sometimes suggests) that law directed at corporations has become highly
punitive. There is a basic issue of equity lurking in the background of many of Simpson's arguments and, unfortunately,
it seldom comes out of the shadows long enough to allow careful inspection. Consider two facts among many that
reflect the reality
of American punitiveness: at present, over one-third of young black men are in prison or jail or on probation
or parole, and America spends more on its Drug War than it does on private health insurance. With "criminalization
facts" like these as background, is it sensible to say that sanctions for corporate crime have become highly
punitive?
Simpson's disengagement from the equity issue reflects a recurrent problem in this book: its narrowness. The
text itself is brief--just 180 pages--and of course it cannot and should not have to say something about everything.
As a review of research about criminal, civil, and regulatory approaches to corporate crime control, it is a
solid piece of synthesis. However, the book's concern with the narrow deterrence question crowds out other important
issues related to corporate crime. One is the question of fairness and desert. Is the gradient differential
between downward and upward law not woefully out of wack in America? Simpson walks up to this question in a footnote
(p. 45) but then bows in deference to the complexity of the issue and returns her attention to matters of deterrence.
Similarly, even if one agrees with the author that the criminalization of corporate crime is "'bad science'
and therefore 'bad policy,'" one wonders why she does not explore the significance of the fact that bad policy
can be very good politics (Edelman 1977).
Some of Simpson's interpretations--of other studies and of her own--also are narrow (pp. 78, 92, 132, 145). Most
notably, her conclusion that "corporate crime control strategies based solely in a deterrence framework are
unlikely to work" (p. 154) attacks a straw man. Who would disagree that fear ALONE is not enough? Even America's
new corporate responsibility law creates mechanisms of compliance that are not based in a deterrent framework.
Here and elsewhere, it would have been instructive to hear Simpson speak more expansively about ambiguities in
the data (as she does at page 43) and about the larger implications of the research she knows so well.
This book's focus on law-breaking also excludes questions about law-making that should be centrally important
in a study about how to encourage corporate responsibility. Corporations largely define the laws under which
they live (Mokhiber 2001). In the current corporate-crime wave, the biggest scandal of all is how much bad behavior
is perfectly legal (Klinger and Sklar 2002). Chief executives routinely use legal but improper accounting methods
to
Page 459 begins here
inflate reported earnings (Buffett 2002). In calculating pension costs, for example, companies are permitted to
use assumptions about investment return rates that are wildly optimistic. Worse yet, almost all C.E.O.'s tell
their shareholders the legal lie that stock options are cost-free. Many companies (such as Ingersoll-Rand) save
hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes per day by taking advantage of off-shore tax havens, leaving people like
you and me to make up the difference (Mayer 2002). Law enforcement budgets are starved for resources. And so
on, ad nauseam.
A big part of the law-making problem is executive and legislative cowardice. American politicians tolerate many
disgusting corporate practices because (among other benefits) they receive 80 percent of their "campaign
contributions" from business interests (the cost of winning a Congressional seat has quadrupled since 1982).
In 1994, for example, Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman led the business charge against the SEC's efforts to
change stock-option rules. Arthur Levitt, who at the time was chairman of the SEC, says that he regrets his retreat
on this issue more than any other move he made during his tenure as chairman. In 1996,
Congress passed the notoriously lax Telecommunications Act because companies such as WorldCom lobbied (and paid)
for its passage. Six years later, WorldCom (with $107 billion in assets) became the biggest bankruptcy in American
history. Nationwide, 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware, where the state legislature
has adopted a laissez faire attitude toward the issuance of charters and the regulation of corporate behavior.
Examples like these illustrate how Simpson's focus on law-breaking makes her argument unduly confined and constrained.
If the core question is "why do corporations obey the law?" (p. i), then one obvious answer is that
many obey because they do not need to disobey; the laws already reflect their interests. Another answer is that
the
corporation's legal structure severely constrains managers' freedom to act responsibly (Mitchell 2001: 3). Unfortunately,
these possibilities merit little mention in this book.
Simpson's own study of corporate crime also relies on a narrow range of evidence--mostly survey replies from MBA
students--that cannot support her strong conclusions about the weak impact of punitive sanctions. The author
acknowledges this when she recognizes that "offending intentions are not the same thing as actual behavior"
(p. 160). Just pages earlier, however, she inferred from the surveys that "managers tend not to adjust [their]
BEHAVIORS based on formal legal threats" (p. 151).
Simpson's survey research has two additional problems. First, the author argues that cooperative strategies of
corporate crime control work better than criminalization approaches even though one of her own surveys partially
contradicts the other, finding that "the structure of self-regulation"--one cornerstone of cooperative
strategies--"did not appear to affect offending decisions" (p. 145). Here again, faith in cooperative
models of corporate compliance seems to triumph over the ambiguous research record.
Second, Simpson believes the surveys show "few [respondents] were 'criminally committed'"--that is,
"always willing to contemplate crime" (p. 122). The evidence, however, is that 15 percent of the students
and executives in the first survey "might be classified as criminally committed" (p. 122), while 30 percent
of
Page 460 begins here
respondents in the second reported a 30 to 90 percent chance of offending. Thus, somewhere between one in seven
and one in three of her largely young, white, male, and well-educated respondents expressed what seems to me
to be a significant propensity to commit corporate crime. If one asked a sample of young American men about their
willingness (say) to sell crack or rob a bank, I doubt if the proportions would approach those found in Simpson's
surveys. If this hunch is right, one must wonder about the validity of another of her core claims, that to control
corporate crime "a policy of persuasion--based on the assumption that most managers and executives want to
do right--is apt to succeed most of the time" (p. 158). Recent events and Simpson's own survey suggest that
a different assumption may be equally valid: many managers want to do well more than they want to do right.
My final critique is conceptual. Corporate crime (like white-collar crime) is notoriously difficult to define,
and Simpson's definition generates a logical strain between different parts of the text. In general, definitions
of white-collar crime vary along two dimensions: focus and scope. The FOCUS can be on the qualities of the offense
or the qualities of the offender, while SCOPE can be narrow so as to include only "true crimes" as defined
by criminal statutes and convictions or broad
enough to cover illegalities (criminal, civil, and administrative) more generally (Johnson and Leo 1993). To come
full circle, Simpson defines corporate crime as the "conduct of a corporation, or of employees acting on
behalf of a corporation, which is proscribed and punishable by law" (p. 6). This decidedly broad-scope definition
expresses three key ideas: that corporate crime can be committed by organizations and individuals; that the motivation
for corporate offending is the pursuit of organizational ends, not individual ones; and (most importantly) that
corporate crime includes violations of civil and administrative law in addition to criminal-law
breaking (p. 7).
There is a misfit between the breadth of Simpson's definition and the narrow target of most criminal sanctions.
Criminal-law enforcement aims to identify, condemn, and sanction violations of CRIMINAL LAW, not of civil or
administrative rules. To ask (as Simpson does) how well criminal-law enforcement deters "corporate crime"
as she broadly defines it is to suppose that the target of criminal law is more expansive than it really is. Thus,
when Simpson says that the criminal sanction "fails to deter corporations and their managers from violating
the law" (p. 45), one does not even need to look at the evidence to formulate the following objection:
criminal sanctions do not attempt to deter "corporate crime" broadly construed, so the purported "failure"
is at least partly an artifact of the dependent variable's broad definition. Simpson is not the first corporate-crime
scholar to be bedeviled by definitional difficulties (nor will she be the last). John Braithwaite (1985: 5) has
argued that "the only answers to 'why' questions that can be made safely [about white-collar and corporate
crime] are also of no explanatory power," and he locates
the roots of the problem in the ambiguities and deficiencies of prevailing definitions. It is hardly Simpson's
fault, but there has been little conceptual improvement in the intervening years. This problem, along with the
even graver difficulty of "counting [crime] we cannot see" (Yeager 1993: 143), renders the study of corporate
crime a "complex topic" indeed (p. ix).
In the end, this provocative book will stimulate readers to think about a wide range of issues in addition to
the important
Page 461 begins here
question of deterrence that lies at its core. And timely it is. Though it is too early to tell, America could
now be experiencing "the private sector's Watergate" (Rich 2002). If so, the current scandal wave may
provide an opportunity to dethrone the free-market fundamentalism that has eviscerated corporate regulation over
the last twenty years (Kuttner 2002; Phillips 2002; Pontell and Calavita 1993). On the other hand, corporate
crime may be unable to generate public opinion of the kind that created and sustained the "anti-corruption
project" which followed Richard Nixon's removal from office (Anechiarico and Jacobs 1996). Many wonder "where
is the outrage?," and Ralph Nader attributes the public's tepid reaction to the complexity of scams and scandals
and to the difficulty of identifying with the rich people who perpetuate white-collar frauds (Wallis 2002). Whatever
the case, if Simpson's main claims are correct--if "getting tougher" is bound to fail as a means of controlling
corporate crime and if "cooperative models" of control work best -- then America is barking up exactly
the wrong tree. It would not be the first time.
I have argued that Simpson may be mistaken--the evidence is too thin to say either way--and that even if she is
right there are other considerations besides deterrence that could make a more punitive approach to corporate
crime eminently appealing. Politically (and cynically), bad policy can be good politics. And jurisprudentially,
there are many occasions when desert trumps deterrence--and should. At a time when American law is fermenting
in a stew of corporate corruption, one may read Simpson's book as a cautionary tale not to proceed down the same
punitive path that America has taken towards conventional crime. The corporate scandals are themselves a cautionary
tale about the hypocrisy of lecturing other nations-as America's federal government did during the financial
crisis in Asia-on the evils of crony capitalism (Sanger 2002).
Finally, while I share Simpson's skepticism about the capacity of the criminal sanction to deter corporate crime,
I do not care if (to pick a crook) former Adelphia Communications CEO John Rigas spends the rest of his already
long life in prison for using the company he founded as his own personal piggy bank--even if a severe sentence
has little or no deterrent effect. Deterrence is important but desert matters too. The danger, of course, is
that get-tough acts will placate the public, deflect criticism of our corporation-dominated democracy, and avert
broader changes to the nation's corporate laws (Labaton 2002). If I part ways with Simpson in deciding how broadly
to frame the question and in assessing how clearly the evidence speaks to it, I join her in urging other researchers
to explore this understudied field. My own hunch is that detailed case studies will yield more meaningful results
than will the statistical analysis of aggregate data.
REFERENCES:
Anechiarico, Frank, and James B. Jacobs 1996. THE PURSUIT OF ABSOLUTE INTEGRITY: HOW CORRUPTION CONTROL MAKES GOVERNMENT
INEFFECTIVE. The University of Chicago Press.
Beatty, Jack, ed. 2001. COLOSSUS: HOW THE CORPORATION CHANGED AMERICA. New York: Broadway Books.
Black, Donald. 1976. THE BEHAVIOR OF LAW. New York: Academic Press.
Braithwaite, John. 2002. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND RESPONSIVE
Page 462 begins here
REGULATION. New York: Oxford University Press.
Braithwaite, John. 1985. TO PUNISH OR PERSUADE: ENFORCEMENT OF COAL MINE SAFETY. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.
Braithwaite, John and Gilbert Geis. 1989. "On Theory and Action for Corporate Crime Control. CRIME & DELINQUENCY
April: 292-314.
Buffet, Warren E. 2002. "Who Really Cooks the Books?" THE NEW YORK TIMES. July 24.
Coleman, James S. 1974. POWER AND THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.
Coleman, James William. 2002. THE CRIMINAL ELITE: UNDERSTANDING WHITE-COLLAR CRIME. New York: Worth Publishers.
Currie, Elliott. 1998. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN AMERICA. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
Edelman, Murray. 1977. POLITICAL LANGUAGE: WORDS THAT SUCCEED AND POLITICS THAT FAIL. New York: Academic Press.
Ermann, M. David, and Richard J. Lundman. 2002. CORPORATE AND GOVERNMENTAL DEVIANCE. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Garland, David. 2001. THE CULTURE OF CONTROL: CRIME AND SOCIAL ORDER IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY. The University of
Chicago Press.
Grabosky, Peter N. 1995. "Counterproductive Regulation." INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF LAW
23: 347-369.
Greider, William. 2002. "Is This America's Top Corporate Crime Fighter?" THE NATION. August 5.
Greenfield, Kent. 2002. "It's Time to Federalize Corporate Charters." Location: http://www.TomPaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6081/
Johnson, David T. and Richard A. Leo. 1993. "The Yale White-Collar Crime Project: A Review and Critique."
LAW & SOCIAL INQUIRY 18: 63-99.
Kagan, Robert A. 2001. ADVERSARIAL LEGALISM: THE AMERICAN WAY OF LAW. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Klinger, Scott and Holly Sklar. 2002.. "Titans of the Enron Economy: The Ten Habits of Highly Defective Corporations."
THE NATION. August 5.
Kuttner, Robert. 2002. "Can Liberal Save Capitalism (Again)?" THE AMERICAN PROSPECT 3(14) (August 12).
Labaton, Stephen. 2002. "Handcuffs Make Strange Politics? Not in Washington." THE NEW YORK TIMES. August
1.
Mayer, Jane. 2002. "The Accountant's War." THE NEW YORKER. April 22 & 29.
Mitchell, Lawrence E. 2001. CORPORATE IRRESPONSIBILITY: AMERICA'S NEWEST EXPORT. Yale University Press.
Mokhiber, Russell 2001. "Corporations: Different Than You and Me." Location: http://lists.essential.org/
Page 463 begins here
Mokhiber, Russell, and Robert Weissman. 1999. CORPORATE PREDATORS: THE HUNT FOR MEGA-PROFITS AND THE ATTACK ON
DEMOCRACY. Common Courage Press.
Packer, Herbert L. 1968. THE LIMITS OF THE CRIMINAL SANCTION. Stanford University Press.
Phillips, Kevin. 2002. WEALTH AND DEMOCRACY: HOW GREAT FORTUNES AND GOVERNMENT CREATED AMERICA'S ARISTOCRACY. New
York: Broadway Books.
Pontell, Henry N., and Kitty Calavita. 1993. "The Savings and Loan Industry." In Michael Tonry and Albert
J. Reiss, Jr., eds. BEYOND THE LAW: CRIME IN COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS. The University of Chicago Press.
Press, Eyal. 1996. "Look at the Cost of White-Collar Crime Too." THE NEW YORK TIMES. April 27.
Rich, Frank. 2002. "Sacrifice Is for Losers." THE NEW YORK TIMES. June 22.
Sanger, David E. 2002. "The Global Cost of Crony Capitalism." THE NEW YORK TIMES. July 21.
Stone, Christopher D. 1975. WHERE THE LAW ENDS: THE SOCIAL CONTROL OF CORPORATE BEHAVIOR. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press.
Walker, Samuel. 1994. "SENSE AND NONSENSE ABOUT CRIME AND DRUGS: A POLICY GUIDE. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Wallis, David. 2002. "Give Them the Business [an interview with Ralph Nader]." THE NEW YORK TIMES. June
16.
Yeager, Peter Cleary. 1993. "Industrial Water Pollution." In Michael Tonry and Albert J. Reiss, Jr.,
eds. BEYOND THE LAW: CRIME IN COMPLEX
ORGANIZATIONS. The University of Chicago Press.
Zimring, Franklin E., and Gordon Hawkins. 1993. "Crime, Justice, and the Savings and Loan Crisis." In
Michael Tonry and Albert J. Reiss, Jr., eds. BEYOND THE LAW: CRIME IN COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS. The University of
Chicago Press.
***************************************************************************
Copyright 2002 by the author, David T. Johnson.