Do perceptions of punishment vary between white-collar and street crimes?
Introduction
At its core, the deterrence doctrine hypothesizes that the perceived threat of swift, certain, and severe sanctions will inhibit criminal activity (Andenaes, 1974, Beccaria, 1764, Tittle, 1980, Zimring and Hawkins, 1973). Extant research yielded a great deal of variation with regard to the effect of sanction threats and sanction imposition, but in general this line of research suggested that sanctions and sanction threats did emerge and did inhibit criminal activity (Nagin, 1998), at least for some segment of the population (Pogarsky, 2002).1 Despite this overall conclusion, the specific effects of certainty, severity, and celerity of punishment and in particular their determinants continue to be an unresolved issue in criminological literature, leaving much yet to be learned and understood (see Nagin, 1998).
Ball (1955, p. 351) noted that the underlying assumption of the “deterrent effect of a law obviously depends upon the individual's knowledge of the law and the punishment prescribed.” As such, it seems important to gather information on the public's perception of the existence of punishment terms and legal threats across different categories of criminal offenses. To date, there has been a very limited amount of research on this issue, and much of it occurred over thirty years ago. For example, Zimring and Hawkins (1973, p. 143) reviewed a public opinion poll from Nebraska in the late 1960s that revealed that 41 percent of adult Nebraska men declared that writing checks with insufficient funds would not be criminal if arrangements to meet the obligations were eventually made. In a California study, inmates of adult correctional facilities gave the correct answer more than a quarter of the time to a number of multiple-choice possibilities regarding the specific penalties to the most serious crimes (California Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure, 1968). This study revealed that the public was generally ill-informed about the legislatively proscribed minimum and maximum penalties for a variety of crimes and that public knowledge of changes in existing minimum and maximum punishments provided by law was also found to be quite low (Zimring & Hawkins, 1973, p. 143). While offenders appeared to have better knowledge about the laws and prescribed punishments than the general public, their knowledge was still limited and lacking. Anderson's (2002) recent study of males who had been imprisoned for a felony, uncovered that only 22 percent of the offenders thought that they knew ʻexactly what the punishment would be' for the crime they committed, while 18 percent reported that they had no idea of the penalty, or ‘thought I knew but was wrong,’ and 35 percent reported that they did not even think about the penalty prior to committing the offense. Tunnell's (1992) qualitative interviews also reported a similar misunderstanding among offenders with regard to the reach of the formal criminal justice system. As can be seen with these examples, information on the public's knowledge base concerning crime and punishment is often based on serious street crimes (see Warr, 1995), leaving white-collar crime, a form of crime that does not generally come to the everyday purview of citizens (Evans, Cullen, & Dubeck, 1993), as of yet, unexplored.
Although there were a handful of studies that had examined general and specific deterrence for samples of white-collar and corporate criminals (Benson and Cullen, 1988, Braithwaite and Makkai, 1991, Geis and Clay, 1980, Hopkins, 1980, Makkai and Braithwaite, 1994, Simpson and Koper, 1992, Stotland et al., 1980, Wheeler et al., 1988), more work needs to be undertaken in order to understand if perceptions of punishment vary across white-collar and street crimes, and importantly, the factors that are associated with punishment perceptions. To provide evidence of these issues, this study used data from a national, random probability sample to examine the perceptions of certainty and severity associated with robbery (a street crime) and fraud (a white-collar crime). In addition to studying perceptions of certainty, it also examined the discord across sanction severity perceptions by assessing whether the results varied according to how punishment severity perceptions are solicited (i.e., the punishment one will likely receive as opposed to the punishment one should receive). This is relevant because what individuals think will likely happen in the criminal justice system may not necessarily coincide with what they think should happen.
Section snippets
Sanction threat perceptions
The deterrence framework has embedded within it two distinct processes, one that pertains to the determinants of sanction threat perceptions and one that pertains to the link between sanction threat perceptions and criminal activity (see Pogarsky, Piquero, & Paternoster, 2004).2
Perceptions of white-collar crimes and their punishments
Research examining public perceptions of white-collar crime had mainly focused on the perceived seriousness of white-collar offenses relative to street crimes (see Evans et al., 1993 for review). Early research suggested that white-collar crimes were not viewed as serious matters or were shown an indifference by the public (Rossi, Waite, Bose, & Berk, 1974), especially in comparison to crimes committed against a person or the public (Geis, 1973, Sutherland, 1949, Wheeler et al., 1988). Still
Current study
While there appears to be a number of different sources from which the public gains information (and forms opinions on) white-collar criminals, what is not clearly understood is how these different sources influence and discriminate across perceptions of white-collar and street crimes. Guided by extant research on public opinion views about punishment for street crimes, the current study attempted to understand how factors associated with sanction perceptions of certainty and severity compared
Data
The data employed in this study came from the National Public Survey on White-Collar Crime that was conducted by the National White-Collar Crime Center (NW3C) (see Rebovich & Layne, 2000). Single-session telephone interviews of U.S. citizens, age eighteen and older, were conducted by trained interviewers using the CATI system during a twelve-week period beginning in January 1999. Random digit dialing was completed on a stratified sample of counties (in order to afford each county a selection
Perceptions of sanction certainty
The survey question addressing perceptions of sanction certainty concerns the robbery/fraud comparison and asked: “Who do you think is more likely to get caught by the authorities, someone who commits robbery and steals $1,000 or someone who commits fraud and steals $1,000?” Response options for this item included: (1) ‘person committing the robbery,’ (2) ‘person committing the fraud,’ or (3) ‘equally likely.’ Since there were very few respondents who indicated that the robbery and fraud crimes
Results
The univariate analyses revealed several interesting findings. First, perceptions of sanction certainty were much higher for robbery (75 percent likely to get caught) compared to fraud (22 percent likely to get caught). Second, with regard to the two severity items, the results were particularly interesting because they differed, contingent on how the question was phrased. When respondents were asked about who would likely receive more severe punishment, the results corroborated nicely the
Discussion
This study set out to examine the correlates of deterrence perceptions (e.g., certainty and severity) in order to assess if similarities or differences emerged across white-collar and street crimes. To accomplish this task, data from a national random probability sample were used. Aside from a traditional measure of sanction certainty, two different approaches to measuring perceived severity were used, what one believes is likely to happen and what one feels should happen. Several independent
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Kane and the National White Collar Crime Center for making the data available. A prior version of this article was presented at the 2005 annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada.
References (73)
- et al.
The special sensitivity of white-collar offenders to prison: A critique and research agenda
Journal of Criminal Justice
(1988) - et al.
Public support for punishing white-collar crime: Blaming the victim revisited?
Journal of Criminal Justice
(1983) - et al.
What drives punitive beliefs?: Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing
Journal of Criminal Justice
(2004) Punishment and deterrence
(1974)The deterrence hypothesis and picking pockets at the pickpocket's hanging
American Law and Economics Review
(2002)The deterrence concept in criminology and law
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science
(1955)- et al.
Telephone-based fraud: A survey of the American public
(1992) On crimes and punishments (E.D. Ingraham, Trans.)
(1764)White collar crime: Re-examination of a concept
International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society
(1988)White collar offenders under community supervision
Justice Quarterly
(1985)
Are white-collar and common offenders the same? An empirical and theoretical critique of a recently proposed general theory of crime
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
White collar crime
Annual Review of Sociology
Crime, shame, and integration
On theory and action for corporate crime control
Crime and Delinquency
Testing an expected utility model of corporate deterrence
Law and Society Review
Deterrent effects of criminal sanctions
Types of deviance and the effectiveness of legal sanctions
Wisconsin Law Review
Corporate crime
Punitive attitudes toward criminals: Racial consensus or racial conflict?
Social Problems
The criminal elite: The sociology of white-collar crime
Reporting behavior of fraud victims and Black's theory of law: An empirical assessment
Justice Quarterly
Understanding crime displacement: An application of rational choice theory
Criminology
Dissecting white-collar crime: Offense type and punitiveness
International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice
The seriousness of crime revisited
Criminology
The ex ante function of the criminal law
Law and Society Review
Public perceptions of corporate crime
Deterring corporate crime
A research and action agenda with respect to white-collar crime
White-collar and corporate crimes
Criminal enforcement of California's Occupational Carcinogens Control Act
Temple Law Quarterly
Perceptions of blue-collar and white-collar crime: The effect of defendant race on simulated juror decisions
Journal of Social Psychology
Introduction to criminology
The differential sentencing of white-collar offenders in ten federal district courts
American Sociological Review
“Club Fed” and the sentencing of white-collar offenders before and after Watergate
Criminology
White-collar crime and punishment: The class structure and legal sanctioning of securities violations
American Sociological Review
Controlling corporate deviance
Criminology
Cited by (61)
Illegal insider trading: Commission and SEC detection
2019, Journal of Corporate FinanceCitation Excerpt :The decisions regarding the budgets for both agencies depend primarily on the general attitudes towards law enforcement at the time. Unlike SEC enforcement efforts against insider trading, DEA activities are unlikely to impact an insider's decision to trade (Schoepfer et al., 2007). Indeed, we find a significant correlation of 0.98 between the budget of the DEA and SEC but no significant correlation between DEA budget and insider trading.
Introduction to Criminal Justice
2024, Introduction to Criminal JusticeClassical deterrence theory revisited: An empirical analysis of Police Force Areas in England and Wales
2023, European Journal of CriminologyPerceptions of White-Collar Crime Seriousness: Unpacking and Translating Attitudes into Policy Preferences
2023, Journal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyPerceptions of white-collar crime registries
2022, Journal of Financial Crime