Occupational (White-Collar) Crime
Sutherland was the first criminologist who drew attention in 1939 to the nature and effects of white-collar or occupational crime in society. Occupational crime refers to “those illegal activities that occur in connection with a person’s job or work”.
The conventional term ‘white-collar crime’ is narrower. It makes reference to the socio-economic status but not to the occupational status of the offender.
According to Sutherland’s original definition, white-collar crime is “a violation of the criminal law by a person of the upper socio-economic class in the course of his occupational activities.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Sutherland added that “the upper socio-economic class is defined not only by its wealth but also by its respectability and prestige in the society” (Sutherland, American Sociological Review, Feb. 1940: 1-12; also see, White-Collar Crime, 1949).
Marshall Clinard (The Black Market, Rinehart & Co., New York, 1952: 127) has defined white-collar crime as “a violation of the law committed primarily by groups such as businessmen, professional men, and politicians in connection with their occupations”.
Frank Hartung (American Journal of Sociology, July 1950: 25-34) defines white-collar crime as “a violation of law regarding business which is committed for a firm by a firm or its agents in the conduct of its business”.
All these acts cannot be included in the definition of white-collar crime because they do not ‘violate any law’. Morality and ethics are not the same as the law, and an immoral or unethical person is not necessarily a criminal. Anti-social acts or violation of conduct norms may be studied by criminologists but they cannot be defined as ‘legal crimes’.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It might be pointed out that Sutherland has labelled two types of persons as white-collar criminals who: (i) have been convicted by the courts, and (ii) who might have been convicted but through pressure or influence were able to avoid conviction, or for various reasons were taken before a commission or a board but not to a court. The focus is only on ‘crime’ as a legal term.
White-collar crime includes misrepresentation in advertising, violation of labour laws, violation of copyright and patent laws, and financial manipulations. However, all crimes committed by high-status people are not white-collar crimes.
Only that crime which is specifically ‘job-oriented’, i.e., which occurs during the course of a person’s job, is white-collar crime. A rich businessman who criminally assaults his lady secretary commits a crime but not an occupational crime to be termed as ‘white-collar crime’.
Sutherland’s emphasis on ‘high social status’ of the offender results in the exclusion of a host of other occupation-related crimes that are similar to white-collar crimes but are committed by the lower-class people.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
For example, illegalities such as adulteration of milk by a milkman for public consumption, making unnecessary ‘repairs’ to radio and television sets, taking out few kilos of gas from the gas cylinder by the workman and so on are all occupational crimes (if law exists and prohibits them) but not white-collar crimes.
Hence, the word that is preferred today for crime that is motivated by a person’s legitimate occupation and context is ‘occupational crime’ and not ‘white-collar crime’.