Crime Criminality Law
The word offense has originated from the Latincrimen– significance charge, guilt or allegation. Most definitions view offense as unexpected behavior that abuses predominating norms, more peculiarly, cultural criterions proposing how worlds might act. The methodological analysis considers the intricate worlds around the construct of offense and attempts to understand how changing societal, political, psychological, and economic fortunes may impact the modern-day definitions of offense and the signifier of the legal, jurisprudence enforcement, and penal responses made by the State. These structural worlds are unpredictable and frequently combative. For illustration, as civilizations change and the political environment displacements, behavior may be criminalised or decriminalised, which will straight impact the statistical offense rates, find the allotment of resources for the enforcement of such Torahs, and act upon the general public sentiment.
“ Criminalism is a probabilistic event determined by the frequence and quality of interaction with individuals keeping definitions favorable or unfavorable to misdemeanor of the jurisprudence. ”
Keel. Robert O: 200l
This paper will look to discourse what ‘criminological theory’ can state us about offense and the workplace by looking to take into history this issue with mention to one peculiar type of workplace offense, thenceforth, looking to efficaciously reason upon this issue. Therefore, with this in head, it will foremost be necessary to look to understand why the survey of offense is so of import and how ‘criminological theories’ have developed, before so traveling on to look to see some of these theories and the policies for commanding offense that originates from them for policymakers to see, every bit good as the theory behind why people really commit offenses. Then, holding done that successfully, it will so be necessary to see how ‘criminological theory’ applies in the workplace, before traveling on to see how this theory is applied to a peculiar type of offense in the workplace – in this instance, ‘white collar’ corporate offense, before a eventually decision on the topic
Get aid with your essay from our adept essay authors…
To get down with, it is of import to see the fact that it must be recognized that the construct of ‘crime’ is a societal fact that clearly requires the attending and energy of all of any given society because whenever offense statistics are announced the public demands “something be done” , since it is clear that people are concerned about the security and safety of their households and their belongings. This means that it is for those in charge and power to look to modulate offense and implement the Torahs of the land to curtail the coming of offense and expression to, finally, effort to forestall it ( Jones S ( 1998 ) at pp.1-8 ) . Keeping this in head, it should be understood that ‘Criminological Theories ‘ in general defines the survey of offense, chief causes of offense and the people’s reaction to offense. It has non been a long clip that criminology with its ain singularity parted from sociology holding some kind of cosmopolitan continuities. Since so criminology developed its ain manner of depicting offense and analyze condemnable behaviour.
By and large, nevertheless, criminologists use words in a certain manner to bespeak relationships between causes ( independent variables ) and effects ( dependent variables ) ( Jones S ( 1998 ) ) . But criminology in world has many different positions, attacks, and theories – although many believe that the survey dates back to Lombroso ( 1876 ) – Though the Middle Class and Integrated theories may be described as a general blend of other theories, but the policy deductions of other theories may besides be taken into history while using these theories to workplace related offenses. Therefore, ‘Biological ( ’Positivist’ ) Theory’( Lombroso ( 1876 ) ) uses appraisal based on scientific opinion to set frontward positions on conceivers of offenses, as offense is either caused or established. Then the determination shapers try to repair the defect while trying to salvage the society from the incurables of drugs, psycho-plastic surgeries and psychotherapeuticss: therefore focuses to ‘medicalise ‘ the justness issue while sing eugenics for the untreatable. But‘Disorganization-Ecological Theory’( Shaw & A ; McKay ( 1931 ) and ( 1942 ) ) revolves around the thought that disorganized addled communities cause offense because they lack the efficiency to contend upset so that it is necessary to look to policies ofsocialization and assimilationalong with community authorization to assist immigrants and stray subcultures feel like portion of mainstream society, but with a disposition to hold societal technology and ethnocentric deductions and a failure to explicate the insularity of some people from inner-city influences.
On the other manus, ‘Anomie-Strain Theory’( Merton ( 1938 ) ) considers the lacking in society ‘s institutional balance while concentrating on the economic system, which consequences into strain and force per unit area. This compels the policy shapers to look for encouraging alterations in the society to guarantee equal chance by doing accommodations through emphasis programmes, socioeconomic reforms permitted by the society. To eliminate greed, green-eyed monster and disproportional fiscal aspiration this besides aims at ciphering wages dependant on person ‘s input to the society. Similarly, ‘Radical-Conflict’ and ‘Rational Choice’ Theory ( as a measure on from ‘Classical Theory’ ( Beccaria ( 1764 ) ) -allied to ‘Critical Theory’ ( Bonger ( 1916 ) ) – besides considers the thought that offense is influenced by fortunes and desires to thrive taking to ’street’ and ‘corporate’ offense due to the inequality of power. At this point, the determination shapers bring alterations in the society by redistributing the belongingss, which allows employees to detect the built-in developments of the capitalist economy. This is by and large done through legalising consensual offenses, offenses related to drugs, flinging establishments and theories of businessperson and holding employee ownership corporations through redistribution of wealth. Furthermore, in maintaining with this thought, ‘Feminist Theory’ ( Adler ( 1975 ) ) work forces commit offenses against adult females to province their power over them besides looks to advance alterations in the society and besides to take power constructions based on gender which provides equal entree for determination devising procedure, but there may be a tendency to side off with females as possible wrongdoers. This may besides name for a possible retreat from diverseness issue sing the disparities as cases of adult females urgently seeking to hold a concrete definition for themselves.
It may be slackly said that change of biological properties in adult female can be besides of peculiar relevancy to offense control. Some writers opine that adult female are affected by endocrines and the same writers view a nexus between the criminalism ( to be more specific – force ) of adult female and their pre or early catamenial period ( Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985: 121 ) .
Though the medical scientists are divided in their sentiment sing premenstrual tenseness as an established beginning of force by adult females but the English tribunals have already successfully argued the possible nexus between female offending and hormonal instability related to their catamenial rhythm ;
“A adult female faced a slaying charge which was reduced to manslaughter
due to decrease duty attributed to PMT, and had received a
provisional sentence with a provision that she undergo endocrine intervention
( R V Craddock [ 1981 ] 1 C1 49 ) . Merely a few months after the first offense,
the same adult female was charged with endangering to kill a police officer and
of possessing an violative arm. Although convicted, PMT acted as a
factor to cut down sentence and she was once more placed on probation and
required to undergo an increased endocrine dosage ( R v Smith Court of Appeal
( Criminal Division ) ” Lexis Enggen, 27 April 1982 ; Craddock and Smith
are the same individual ) .
( Williams, 1991: 314-15 )
As we may happen that during both occasions the adult female was convicted and the PMT could non truly function as a complete defense mechanism, but while covering with the adult female it appeared that ‘treatment’ instead than ‘punishment’ was more appropriate. In this context, the positive positions on biological properties were more prevailing while turn toing the offense control by two English tribunals. While measuring the committedness of violent offense by work forces, ‘testosterone’ – the degree of male sex endocrine has been often linked, with peculiar mention to aggressive work forces perpetrating more offense. In conformity to the grounds provided by Wilson and Herrnstein, the work forces and adult females differ in the inclination to perpetrate offense does non needfully associate to their difference in upbringing but it is more reliant on their endocrine ;
“ ( 1 ) Males are more aggressive than females in all human societies for
which grounds is available. ( 2 ) The sex differences are found excessively early in
life, at a clip when there is no grounds that differential socialisation
force per unit areas have been brought to bear by grownups to ‘shape’ aggression
otherwise in the two sexes… ( 3 ) Similar sex differences are found in adult male
and subhuman Primatess. ( 4 ) Aggression is related to sex endocrines and
can be changed by experimental disposal of these hormones.”
( Maccoby & A ; Jacklin, 1974, quoted in Wilson & A ; Herrnstein, 1985: 117-18 )
However, ‘Learning Theory ‘ ( ’Developmental Life Course’ ) ( Sampson & A ; Laub ( 1993 ) refers offense to be a erudite behaviour where policy shapers focus to bring forth a policy of rehabilitation by agencies of re-education and re-socialization, where wrongdoers are separated and the suggestible people are kept off from inauspicious influences, holding the tendency of better success at public presentation oriented alterations, non needfully clear uping lone offending or in-between category divergence. However, ‘Control Theory ‘ ( Hagan ( 1989 ) relates more about presence or absence, slightly command directing to offense, demanding bar and mending through cemented bondage by making trust associations, developing chances for the hereafter, and believing in the basic social model leting criminological theories to hold full success, peculiarly when work retaining strategies are combined which may look hard to work in a diverse society holding cultural and societal category differences. However, ‘Labeling Theory’ is concerned with the thought that people are ‘labeled’ in condemnable functions, so that policymakers ( Lemert ( 1951 ) ) are more concerned with bar through restricting the societal shaming reaction in others so as to replaced moral bitterness with forbearance holding options for recreation, client authorization undertakings, dialogue, mollification, criminal-victim exoneration rites, compensation and reimbursements.
Though it is of import to analyze the chief constituents and the policy deductions of theories, it is besides every bit of import to heighten the apprehension of why person decides to perpetrate a offense. Harmonizing to Clarke and Cornish’s ( 1986 ) ,free willis by and large taken into history but certain backgrounds and circumstantial factors which pre-influence person to perpetrate offense which may include household history, intelligence, equal force per unit area, poisoning and the ambiance predominating in the life country. Additionally, the‘need for money or position ‘ is identified as‘motive ‘by Clarke and Cornish ( 1986 ) but the generalised demands are considered to be the existent demands.
The“ Previous acquisition and experience ”relates to more direct or expressed acquaintance with offense as the felon might be comparing the mark with ain successes in the yesteryear. In such instances the wrongdoer may besides take into history his ain perceptual experience of other ‘s successes while sing hedging the jurisprudence enforcement by their ain ability and accomplishments. Furthermore,“Blocked opportunities”is a construct from strain theory and would likely non be used by a rational pick theoretician, but it is the criminal’s appraisal of what legitimate avenues are available for fulfilling their demands, whilst the“amount of attempt required”tantrums into this as the sum of clip spent sing and measuring whether the wagess ( and costs ) of offense outweigh alternate avenues. Finally, the thought of“Readiness to perpetrate crime”may be interpreted as the psychological readying of the felon, which the strain theory translates as the going of legitimacy or religion in an unjust society, but once more here ‘diffusion ‘ dominates the spirit of the subject as the condemnable involves in self-talk, heighten their ain belief of perpetrating the offense.
On this footing, because of the fact that the workplace is such a focal point of mention for all modern societies, for an effectual survey on criminalism in the workplace may be found to be one of the most appropriate countries. … . ‘in the service and’ ? ( Would the parity below in Yellow be better suited above? ) This peculiar statement may be substantiated by the present twenty-four hours economic transmutation, which chiefly revolves around information and services as the basic agencies. Such chances generated Scopess of ‘white neckband ‘ offenses and besides facilitated general workplace offenses ; therefore distributing more offense oriented apprehensivenesss.
In this context, the workplace clearly standouts at its ain as a possible beginning for offense and force because of important rise of violent activities within workplace as per the recent apprehension ( Baxter & A ; Margavio ( 1996 ) ) , in the service and information scenes, workplace offense is more common as fiscal offense and fraud are by and large less seeable and hard to observe when compared to general larceny. ( Jensen & A ; Hodson ( 2004 ) ) . Therefore the hard intensions of regulative jurisprudence loosely define the ‘white neckband ‘ offense instead than what the condemnable jurisprudence does ( Friedrichs ( 1996 ) ) , As such corporate unease is an of import issue to be studied at the interface of workplace and offense survey ( Braithwaite ( 1984 ) and Clinard & A ; Yeager ( 1980 ) ) where issues like illegal environmental dumping, labour jurisprudence misdemeanors and unauthorised trading are covered.
The survey of workplace offense is besides facilitated by the uninterrupted enlargement of ‘shadow economic system ‘ in the USA, because of the fact that most of these economic activities appear out of the parametric quantities of official establishmentsand significantly, in many developing economic systems ( Portes, Castells & A ; Benton, ( 1989 ) ) . This is because relevant activities are non restricted to the proviso of illegal goods and services, such as drugs and gaming, since the greater portion of this economic system is based on the production of legal goods and services paid for ‘off the books’ to avoid revenue enhancement ( Jensen & A ; Hodson ( 2004 ) ) . As such while analyzing the chance structures for economic enterprises establishing on the survey of economic Torahs, offers a critical nexus between workplace constructs and criminology ; chiefly for the ground that the function of institutional stockholders may besides be important for the analysis of offenses related to workplaces. ( Freeman & A ; Medoff ( 1984 ) ) . The surveies of chance constructions in the workplace offense bears and correspondent function to the organisational construction in the sociology of work ( Cohen & A ; Felson ( 1979 ) ) , since the dramatis personae of histrions are provided by the officeholders of organisational places holding different power and liberty degrees.
As a affair of fact, it has now become imperative to hold a closer survey of workplace related offenses as an of import growing country in criminology and sociology of work, as corporate nonfeasance additions to greater grades due to relentless growing of vast‘transnational ‘corporations. It may be good argued that the survey of issues of workplace offense where criminology may function as a important tool and may be done through the extension of constructs and theories, concentrating at explicating street offenses, circumstantially uniform offense within new types and scenes that are peculiarly relevant to scrutinies of workplace offenses or offenses committed by the persons of establishments. ( Jensen & A ; Hodson ( 2004 ) ) . However, although there is turning involvement in offenses happening within specific contexts, such as the workplace, piquing behaviour and victimization within such scenes has non received the experimental or conjectural consciousness diverted to explicate or grok ‘street offense ‘ for the ground that criminology theory and subsequent research dressed ore on‘etiology ‘of offense which focuses on‘street offenses ‘more frequently as official statistics. However ‘work ‘ features are frequently referred as independent variables and joblessness every bit good as low paid occupations is of primary focal point. ( Allan & A ; Steffen Meier ( 1989 ) and Chiricos ( 1987 ) ) . Nevertheless, some attending has besides been paid to the consequence of the ‘command-versus-obey’ position of parents’ businesss sing their children’s delinquent behaviour ( Hagan, Gillis, & A ; Simpson ( 1985 ) and ( 1987 ) ) , but neither offense at the workplace nor offense generated by workplace experiences has received much attending.
As a affair of fact, surprisingly the construct ofwhite-collar offensewas introduced by Edwin Sutherland ( ( 1940 ) at p.9 ) when he recognized it as“crime committed by a individual of reputability and highsocietal position in the class of his occupation”so as to direct attending to offenses, including monetary value repair, fraud, and corruptness. This happens because when the construct is administered into the prevailing civilization, it appeared to be perplexing as a well defined offense. For this different other criminologists, establishing on such features desired to hold more exactly defined types of offense because Green ( ( 1997 ) at p.18 ) differentiates four classs of occupational offense based on several of these differentiations: ( a ) organisational occupational offense that encompasses offenses in which the using organisation benefits, ( B ) province authorization occupational offense that encompasses condemnable maltreatments of authorization by functionaries, ( degree Celsius ) professional occupational offense that encompasses“crimes by professionals in their capacity as professionals”, and ( vitamin D ) single occupational offense that encompasses offenses by persons ( Jensen & A ; Hodson ( 2004 ) ) .
However, in looking to concentrate on issues of ‘white neckband crime’ , although the focal point of Zey’s ( 1999 ) survey of corporate fraud positions Institutional model and webs as the most of import characteristic of this peculiar offense where facets of conventional criminological theories still remains valid. This is competently illustrated by the fact that, similar to Tillman and Pontell ( 1995 ) , Zey ( ( 1993 ) at p.234 ) argues organisational construction facilitates corporate offense and certain types facilitate it more than others because“a cardinal alteration in one organisational characteristic—corporate form—affects corporate crime”( p.234 ) . Therefore, specifically the transmutation from multidivisional corporate signifiers to ‘multi-subsidiary’ really led to the development of independent and profitable subordinate fraud webs ( Jensen & A ; Hodson ( 2004 ) ) . Therefore, even though at institutional degree this perceptual experience was accepted, the theory virtually had small difference with conventional criminological theories because fraud was compelled to run into marks for a ‘ browbeaten ‘ economic system which is free from corporate control by doing net incomes.
As a consequence, as Zey ( ( 1993 ) at p.243 ) earlier espoused,“When alteration is rapid, the context is volatile, and control is losing at the province and organisational degree, self-interest is to be expected”, exactly intending that when restraints ( societal control-deterrence theory ) are lifted there is a rise in fraud and white neckband offense as a derivative ( Hagan ( 1989 ) . which offers immediate addition by persons and establishments with fewer committedness to self regulative regulations( self control theory )and within limited net incomes of legal endeavors holding higher force per unit area for consequences ( strain theory ( Merton ( 1938 ) . Additionally these attempts were farther persuaded by institutional and single codifications of silence( cultural aberrance theory )to let conventional criminological theories and constructs to suit all possible positive appeared factor involved ( Jensen & A ; Hodson ( 2004 ) ) . However, although‘etiological’theories of offense have dominated criminological research, the subject has a much broader focal point. In fact, criminology is most merely defined as“the scientific survey of the procedures of doing Torahs, of interrupting Torahs, and of responding to the breakage of laws”( Sutherland & A ; Cressey ( 1974 ) at p.3 ) .
Hence, professionals clearly do out a suited group for the research of work topographic point related offenses ; for the ground that they enjoy some grade of freedom and power in the work topographic point which allows them the range of mistreating their professional position. ( Abbott ( 1988 ) ) and Dabney and Hollinger’s ( 1999 ) position on drug maltreatment among druggists offers touchable penetration into how such professional privilege can be abused and besides easy be extended to the analysis of other professions. However, as the ‘white neckband ‘ offense issue is discussed, as the offense has huge acknowledgment, to restrict these offenses Governments largely resort to modulate economic activities ; even though deregulating sometimes may open Scopess for fresh offenses. ( Jensen & A ; Hodson ( 2004 ) ) . Since the economic ordinances are by and large really complex, therefore these may offer functional Scopess for condemnable hustles and their control appears to be as farther complicacies, despite the significant economic effects ( Coleman ( 1994 ) ) .
As stated earlier, the construct of ‘white collar offense ‘ that was ab initio introduced by Edwin Sutherland at the presidents’ reference to the American Sociological Society in Philadelphia in1939. ( Hollinger & A ; Jason L Davis ( 2006 ) ) In general footings and traveling back to the start of the paper and ‘criminology theory ‘ and to be critical about this theory.Whatdoes the theory province about the bar schemes and methods and how affectional these methods are within the workplace where fraud ( occupational and/or corporate offense ( Clinard & A ; Quinney ) ) in the workplace is common and peculiarly unwanted but is a world of the modern planetary clime that we live? Bearing head that ‘occupation ‘ white-collar offense focuses on benefits for the person and ‘corporate ‘ offense focused on senior direction and executives. In the chief there are no concrete schemes in topographic point in most workplaces where these Acts of the Apostless by employees have inauspicious effects on pecuniary costs to the consumer which consequences in an estimated rising prices cost to the consumer from 10 to 15 % ( Friedrich, 2004 ; Hollinger & A ; Clark, 1983 ) . Why do employees steal and go dishonest? “ The most popular theories fall into three classs: ( 1 ) rational pick theories, ( 2 ) occupation satisfaction or workplace equity theories, and ( 3 ) organisational theories that concentrate on the effects of Informal workplace, that Is, a ‘culture of dishonesty ‘ . ” ( Hollinger & A ; Jason L Davis ( 2006 ) ) . What procedures can be initiated in helping companies to discourage employee larceny and staff dishonesty ; recruitment processs now include extended multiple interview and showing procedures, drug testing, condemnable background cheques, recognition rating and honestness testing. The larger companies are now guaranting that more sophisticated preventive steps within the workspace such as computing machine package bundles, CCTV cameras, supervisors and general cheques and balance processs are being routinely used by companies to seek and control such activities The inquiry being is whether theses preventive steps work or are simple at that place as ‘wallpaper ‘ or do they move as a active preventive menaces in the workplace to employees? The staff that are most vulnerable or at hazard to being recruited for this type of occupational taking to corporate fraud and what are the marks that staff are perpetrating workplace fraud? Puting major office ‘corporate ‘ fraud aside the enlisting for such activities within the workplace starts with the younger staff and they are peculiarly at hazard to the ‘coffee or fume room ‘ enlisting to office fraud. The marks of office fraud can change from one populating beyond one ‘s agencies in comparing to their position and pay class paying for chancing depts or merely to be able to pay for the twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours demands of nutrient, lodging, position or amusement ; ( Hollinger & A ; Jason L Davis ( 2006 ) ) ; some wrongdoers refuse publicity in order to keep continuity of their demands as any alteration in position or motion to another section would earnestly consequence their chance of stuff or/and fiscal addition. What are the initial preventive steps that can be taken ; a closer examination at the enlisting degree within any workplace should be introduced and thenceforth, if staff are found to be guilty of workplace fraud this bagging, surrenders and legal actions taken should be made public in order that the balance of the work force are reminder that serious steps that will be initiated if this offenses is proven against any staff member of a work force. There is a inclination that doing such deceitful activities public by companies it could give the company’s good name and good will, nevertheless, the other side of the statement is that it could stay as an entrenched or broad death at a more senior degree if such illegal actions are non terminated at the early phase prior to occupational workspace offense taking to corporate workplace criminalismfor illustration, the ‘the Nat West three ‘ and the major corporate fraud instance. ( Enron )
In decision, as it is rather apparent that ‘criminological theories ‘ can depict work topographic point related offenses to us and when we consider this issue with mention to one peculiar type of work topographic point offense, the ‘criminological theory’ may offer the same dividend as depicting offenses in any other environment. Primarily though ‘criminological theory ‘ purposes at depicting work topographic point offenses but it is still developing, so greater accent should lie in understanding the topographic point of offense with due importance. This peculiar position may be supplemented by the fact that while trying to discourse few ‘criminological theory’ along with their consequence on policy devising at the first portion of this paper, it may be deduced that these theories may besides be applied in offenses related to work topographic point. This is so, as in the present twenty-four hours planetary context work topographic point bears the testimony of high importance in the society and being perceived as ‘microcosm’ of the greater universe. Hence for the survey of condemnable activities in the work topographic point really clearly stands out as a important sphere in the universe of offense.
However, complicated countries of regulative jurisprudence mostly define ‘white-collar’ offenses, instead than by something, which is clearly defined ( Friedrichs ( 1996 ) ) . In this context, for the survey of offense in the work topographic point, criminology may function as a critical instrument by the extension of theories and constructs which explains offense in the streets ; or uniform perspective offenses within new scenes and different types of offense those are quite relevant for look intoing work topographic point or in that context the organisational felons.( Jensen & A ; Hodson ( 2004 ) ) . Consequently, in concentrating upon issues of ‘white neckband crime’ , although the focal point of Zey’s ( 1999 ) survey of corporate fraud respects organizational construction and webs as the most important facets of this sort of offense, elements of traditional criminological theory still use.
As such, the advancement of independent and profitable subordinate fraud webs originated from the interchange of multidivisional corporate signifiers to‘multisubsidiary’( Jensen & A ; Hodson ( 2004) ) . Therefore, though at institutional degree this perceptual experience was accepted, the theory virtually had small difference with conventional criminological theories because fraud was compelled to run into marks for a‘ downtrodden ‘economic system which is free from corporate control by doing net incomes. This rather efficaciously means in the face of raising restraints, fraud and white neckband offense will look as a derivative ( societal control-deterrence theory ( Hagan ( 1989 ) ) and within limited net incomes from legal endeavors, this will foster the addition by persons and organisations holding less commitment to self regulative regulations but where consequence demands high force per unit area. ( Strain theory ( Merton ( 1938 ) ) . In add-on, this activity was farther facilitated by establishments and interpersonal codification of silence ( cultural aberrance theory ) for leting conventional criminological theories and constructs to embrace all possible ingredients that white neckband offense could be involved with. ( Jensen & A ; Hodson ( 2004 ) ) . – I seem to believe that this is non quiet finished or concluded?
I so have to make a dual cheque this ‘Bibliography’ ! ! ! – Peter, any advise/guidance would be greatly apprehended – thank you…..Roy
Abbott. Angstrom‘The system of professions’Chicago: University of Chicago Press ( 1988 )
Adler. F‘Sisters in Crime’New York: McGraw-Hill ( 1975 )
Allan. E. A & A ; Steffen Meier. D. J‘Youth, underemployment & A ; belongings offense: Differential effects of occupation handiness and occupation quality on juvenile & A ; immature grownup apprehension rates’( 1989 ) 54 American Sociological Review 107-123
Baxter. V & A ; Margavio. Angstrom‘Assaultive force in the U.S. Post Office’( 1996 ) 23 Work & A ; Occupations 272-296.
Beccaria. C‘On Crimes & A ; Punishments’( 1764 ) Indianapolis IN: Bobbs-Merrill
Bonger. W‘Criminality & A ; Economic Conditions’Boston: Little, Brown ( 1916 )
Braithwaite. J ‘Corporate offense in the pharmaceutical industry’London: Routledge Kegan Paul ( 1984 )
Chiricos. T. G‘Rates of offense & A ; unemployment: An analysis of aggregative research evidence’( 1987 ) 50 American Sociological Review 317-323
Clinard. M. B & A ; Yeager. P. C‘Corporate crime’New York: Free Press ( 1980 )
Cohen. L. E & A ; Felson. M‘Social alteration & A ; offense rate tendencies: A everyday activity approach’( 1979 ) 44 American Sociological Review 588-608
Coleman. J. S‘The condemnable elite’New York: St. Martin’s ( 1994 )
Cornish. D & A ; Clarke. R ( explosive detection systems. )‘The Reasoning Criminal’New York: Springer-Verlag ( 1986 ) ( taken from‘The Decision to Perpetrate a Crime’( 01/06/04 ) )
Criminology Mega-Site ( 2004 )
(hypertext transfer protocol: //faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/criminology.htm)
Dabney. D. A & A ; Hollinger. R. C‘Illicit prescription drug usage among pharmacists’( 1999 ) 26 Work & A ; Occupations 78-108
Freeman. R. B & A ; Medoff. J. L‘What do brotherhoods make? ’New York: Basic Books ( 1984 )
Friedrichs. D. O‘Trusted criminals‘Belmont, CA: Wadsworth ( 1996 )
Green. G. S ‘Occupational crime’2neodymiumEdition, Chicago: Nelson/Hall ( 1997 )
Hagan. J‘Structural Criminology’New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University ( 1989 )
Hagan. J, Gillis. A. R & A ; Simpson. J‘The category construction of gender & A ; delinquency: Toward a power-control theory of common delinquent behavior’( 1985 ) 90 American Journal of Sociology 1151-1178
Hagan. J, Gillis. A. R & A ; Simpson. J‘Class in the family: A power control theory of gender & A ; delinquency’( 1987 ) 92 American Journal of Sociology 788-81
Jensen. G. F & A ; Hodson. Roentgen‘Synergies in the Study of Crime & A ; the Workplace – A Editorial Introduction’Work & A ; Occupations ( 2004 )
Jones. S‘Criminology’Butterworths ( 1998 )
Keel. Robert O: Uniform resource locator: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/200/200lec.html
Lemert. Tocopherol‘Social Pathology’New York: McGraw-Hill ( 1951 )
Lombroso. C‘L‘Uomo Delinquente’Milan: Hoepli ( 1876 )
Merton. Roentgen‘Social Structure & A ; Anomie’( 1938 ) 3 American Sociological Review 672-682
Sublime portes. A, Castells. M & A ; Benton. L ( Eds. )‘The informal economic system: Surveies in advanced & A ; less developed countries’Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press ( 1989 )
Sampson. R & A ; Laub. J‘Crime in the Devising: Pathways & A ; Turning Points Through Life’Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press ( 1993 )
Shaw. C & A ; McKay. H‘Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency’Washington, DC: Government Printing Office ( 1931 )
Shaw. C & A ; McKay. H‘Juvenile Delinquency & A ; Urban Areas’Chicago: University of Chicago Press ( 1942 )
Sutherland. E. H‘White neckband criminality’( 1940 ) 5 American Sociological Review 1-12
Sutherland. E. H & A ; Cressey. D. R ‘Criminology’New York: J. B. Slipknot ( 1974 )
Tillman. R & A ; Pontell. H‘Organizations & A ; fraud in the economy and loan industry’( 1995 ) 73 Social Forces 1439-1463
Zey. M‘Banking on fraud‘New York: Aldine De Gruyter ( 1993 )
Zey. M‘The subsidiarization of the securities industry & A ; the organisation of securities fraud webs to return net incomes in the 1980s’( 1999 ) 26 Work & A ; Occupations 51-77