How White-Collar Crime is Treated Differently

White-collar crime, typically associated with individuals in positions of trust and authority within organisations, often receives different treatment compared to other types of crime. This essay will explore the various factors contributing to this disparity, including underreporting, internal handling by corporations, potential judicial leniency, and the challenges in investigating powerful entities.

Underreporting is a significant issue surrounding white-collar crime. As Marxists argue, there is a tendency to perceive middle-class crimes as less serious, leading to lower reporting rates compared to working-class crimes. This contributes to a large 'dark figure' of unreported white-collar crimes in official statistics. For instance, financial fraud within a company might go unreported to avoid reputational damage, whereas a street robbery is more likely to be reported immediately.

Furthermore, the nature of white-collar crimes often allows for internal handling within corporations. Companies may choose to resolve issues like embezzlement internally to avoid negative publicity and potential legal ramifications. This contrasts sharply with traditional crime, where police involvement is the norm.

Critics also point out the possibility of judicial leniency towards white-collar criminals. They argue that judges, often coming from similar social backgrounds, may be more understanding and lenient in sentencing these individuals. This potential bias feeds into the perception that white-collar crime has less severe consequences. For example, a corporate executive involved in insider trading might receive a lighter sentence compared to someone convicted of petty theft.

The complexity of investigating white-collar crime also contributes to the disparity in treatment. Cases often involve intricate financial transactions, requiring specialized knowledge and resources that may not be readily available. Additionally, large corporations can leverage their influence and resources to hinder investigations and evade responsibility. The case of Enron exemplifies this, where the corporation's complex accounting practices and political influence made it challenging to hold individuals accountable.

Research by Tombs and White supports this, suggesting that serious white-collar crimes often receive less attention from law enforcement. Their work highlights the disparity in investigation rates and prosecution, reinforcing the perception that white-collar crime is treated differently.

Finally, media representation plays a role in shaping public perception. While street crimes often receive sensationalized coverage, white-collar crimes may be underrepresented or portrayed in a less dramatic light. This contributes to the public perceiving these crimes as less important or impactful.

In conclusion, the treatment of white-collar crime differs significantly from other types of crime due to various factors, including underreporting, internal handling, potential judicial leniency, and the complexities of investigation and prosecution. This disparity raises concerns about fairness within the justice system and the perception that certain individuals may be able to evade accountability due to their social standing and the nature of their crimes. Addressing this inequality requires greater transparency, stricter enforcement, and a shift in societal attitudes towards recognizing the seriousness of white-collar offences.