ISSN 1062-7421
Vol. 11 No. 11 (November 2001) pp. 499-502.

WHITE-COLLAR CRIME AND CRIMINAL CAREERS by David Weisburd and Elin Waring with Ellen F. Chayet. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 189 pp. Cloth $49.95. ISBN: 0-521-77162-5. Paper $16.95. ISBN: 0-521-77763-1.

Reviewed by Rick A. Matthews, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Ohio University.

Edwin Sutherland coined the term "white-collar crime" in his 1939 presidential address to the American Sociological Society. Sutherland's presidential address, later published in the AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW as "White Collar Criminality," was subsequently followed in 1949 by a monograph entitled WHITE COLLAR CRIME. Sutherland's call to study white-collar crime marked a major shift in the focus of criminological inquiry, as criminological research and theorizing prior to that time had been directed toward the lower classes, e.g., the works inspired by the "Chicago School" of sociology: McKay (1930); later Shaw and McKay (1942); and those of Robert Merton (1938). Sutherland argued that members of society occupying positions of privilege and status were just as likely to commit crimes as those from the lower classes. Importantly, Sutherland extended his differential association theory to those committing white-collar crime, arguing that both types of crime could be explained by a single theory.

From the beginning there was considerable controversy surrounding Sutherland's definition of white-collar crime, and his claims that it could be explained by a theory that simultaneously explained street crime. Many argued that the definition was either too vague and/or too broad. For instance, Sutherland's definition included both organizations and individuals as "criminal actors." It also included violations of the criminal code and regulatory codes. Finally, at different times he emphasized the social standing of the offender and at others the opportunity to commit crime based on their occupation. Most often, however, Sutherland argued it was both
social standing and the opportunity of occupation that lead to individuals committing white-collar crimes. Some have argued that this is the essence of white-collar crime, and criminologists should therefore limit their inquiry to those of positions and power rather than middle-class or working-class offenders who commit crimes while "on the job" (Geis 1992). On the other hand, there are those like the current authors who have noted that limiting the study of white-collar crimes by these criteria would exclude the vast majority of those arrested for white-collar offenses. As they note, most white-collar offenders differ in marked ways from elite offenders, and their crimes are "frequently as mundane as their social class backgrounds" (p. 10).

The uninitiated reader may be wondering if there is any conceptual, definitional or other consensus among those who study what is loosely termed "white-collar crime." In a word, the answer is no. Scholars have heeded Sutherland's call to study white-collar crime and have done so studying everything from the illegal activities of corporations and government agencies to entry-level bank tellers and from

Page 500 begins here

political crimes to state-corporate crimes. The level of analysis has ranged from the individual to the corporation, and theoretical explanations have varied accordingly (for an excellent overview, see Friedrichs, 1996).

The authors of WHITE COLLAR CRIME AND CRIMINAL CAREERS examine white-collar crime as a legal category that includes several offenses, studying
what they term "a broad range of white-collar crimes and criminals prosecuted in American federal courts" (p. 11). Of central importance to their study is whether current research and theorizing in the area of "criminal careers" may be extended to white-collar offenders, and whether there are significant differences between those who commit white-collar or street crimes.

Their study is an extension of previous research by Stanton Wheeler and his colleagues at the Yale Law School (see Wheeler, Weisburd and Bode 1988). In the original Yale Law School study, Wheeler et al. (1988) examined a sample of those who had committed one of eight federal crimes (antitrust offenses, securities fraud, mail and wire fraud, false claims and statements, credit and lending institutions fraud, bank embezzlement, income tax fraud, and bribery). The cases in the Yale study were selected from seven federal judicial districts during the fiscal years of 1976-1978. Information about the offenders was drawn from Presentence Investigation reports (PSIs). The PSIs indicated that nearly forty percent of those in the study had a prior arrests on their record, a fact that leads us to the current study.

In the book under review, Weisburd and Waring use arrests as indicators of criminality and match Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) rap sheets to the cases from the original Yale study to determine what types of offenses their sample of white-collar criminals had committed. Overall they found that "almost half were at some time arrested for at least one offense other than the white-collar crime that led to their inclusion in the original Yale study" (p. 27). Nearly one-third had an arrest before or after their criterion offense that led to inclusion in the Yale study.

The careful reader may have noted several potential methodological limitations with this study. For example, in reference to the sample, only those who have been prosecuted (and convicted) in federal (not state) courts are included. Nor does the sample include those who have not been criminally prosecuted, but may have been subject to a suit in civil court or under administrative law. Related, prior research has suggested that those with more power, prestige and money are less likely to be prosecuted or convicted, which would have excluded them from the original Yale study. Missing rap sheets would further serve to narrow the sample. Finally, the use of arrests as a measure of criminality obviously omits those who may have committed crimes but who were not arrested. To their credit, the authors note from the beginning these and other limitations of their data, and discuss how these limitations may effect their findings.

Weisburd and Waring compare the findings from their white-collar sample to those that have been generated in the literature on street criminals on the following dimensions: frequency of offending, onset of offending, desistance from offending, duration, specialization, and career patterns. The results of this analysis are not particularly earth-shattering, which I say not out of malice, but to emphasize the rather ordinary nature of the white-collar crimes studied here, a point to which I later

Page 501 begins here

return. The authors find that some white-collar criminals engage in both street and white-collar crimes, that they begin and end their criminal careers at a later age street criminals, and that they are unlikely to demonstrate a high degree of specialization in offending. In addition, those with one or two offenses on their record are likely to be relatively indistinguishable from those in similar economic and social circumstances. Such offenders are most likely motivated by some type of life crisis or special opportunity, and do not possess characteristics similar to career street offenders. The authors divide chronic offenders--those with multiple offenses--into two groups. Those in the first group tend to exhibit a "complex mix of traits associated with both deviance and conformity" (p. 90). These offenders may have characteristics associated with social stability (e.g., marriage, owning a house), and achievement. Yet, at the same time, their behavior demonstrates a pattern of offending that is not consistent with mere opportunity. The second group of chronic offenders tended to have many offenses over the course of their life. As Weisburd and Waring note, "deviance in the lives of these offenders is not restricted to criminality, but often appears to be a central part of their childhood development and adult histories" (p. 90). This subgroup of white-collar offenders more closely represents chronic street criminals and their criminal careers.

Other findings of interest include the following. Prison sentences do not have specific deterrent effects on rearrest, whether examining "the likelihood, timing, frequency or type of recidivism" (p. 113). On the other hand, financial penalties appear to have a greater deterrent effect on later recidivism. The factors that contribute to recidivism in street crime are similar to those that lead to recidivism in white-collar crime--a long prior record, being unmarried, a history of drug use and gender. However, the current research by Weisburd and Waring supports a common finding in studies of recidivism, namely that it is overall very difficult to predict future behavior from past social and criminal history.

In the concluding chapter the authors address two common questions for criminologists who study either crime in the suites or crime in the streets. The first is whether any meaningful distinctions can be made between those who commit white-collar crimes or street crimes. The authors argue that such distinctions best viewed as a product of society's moralistic tendencies rather than any empirical reality. In this moralistic view, armed robbers are "bad" people, while white-collar offenders are generally "good" people who, for some unexplained reason, have temporarily gone astray. As the findings of the authors suggest, there are many noteworthy similarities between white-collar crime offenders and street crime offenders. Second, the authors address the question of whether social history and human development are more important in explaining white-collar crime than immediate context. They conclude that, "for many criminals, the key to understanding involvement in crime is not found in their distant pasts or in the complexities of human development. Rather, it lies in the immediate context of the crimes they
commit" (p. 145). This supports those theoretical positions that argue the motivation to offend is best viewed not as a constant, but rather something that varies over time and space. An important finding from the present study is that many of the offenders would likely not have committed a crime had they not faced some perceived crisis "that threaten(ed) them, their families

Page 502 begins here

or their companies" (p. 146). Thus, the central determinants of their behavior are not personality characteristics or other individual-level traits, but rather the "specific situations (that) lead otherwise law-abiding people to participate in crime" (p. 149). In terms of policy, then, the authors note even if such traits could be found, such individual characteristics would likely be so specific to particular individuals as to render them useless in creating meaningful categories of offenders, or general policies to prevent white-collar offending.

Overall, the value of this study lies in two areas. First, it is a significant contribution to the literature that focuses on the many varieties of white-collar offenses committed by individuals across categories of social status. Second, it adds another dimension to the theoretical debates within criminology as a whole concerning the value of attempting to generate general theories of crime that explain such events across both the type of crime (i.e., street or white-collar) and social class. As such, it is likely to serve as an important reference for those interested in either area.

REFERENCES:

Friedrichs, David O. 1996. TRUSTED CRIMINALS: WHITE COLLAR CRIME IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Geis, Gilbert. 1992. WHITE COLLAR CRIME: WHAT IS IT? In WHITE COLLAR CRIME RECONSIDERED, edited by Kip Schlegel and David Weisburd. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Merton, Robert. 1938. "Social Structure And Anomie," AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 3: 672-682.

Shaw, Clifford. 1930. THE JACK-ROLLER: A DELINQUENT BOY'S OWN STORY. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shaw, Clifford and McKay, Henry. 1942. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND URBAN AREAS. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sutherland, Edwin. 1940. "White Collar Criminality," AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 5: 1.

Sutherland, Edwin. 1949. WHITE COLLAR CRIME. New York: Dryden Press.

Wheeler, Stanton, David Weisburd and Nancy Bode. 1988. STUDY OF CONVICTED FEDERAL WHITE-COLLAR CRIME DEFENDANTS. National Archives of Criminal Justice Data. The Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

****************************************************************

Copyright 2001 by the author, Rick A. Matthews.