6 ms·

> The researchers noted that this type of elite, white-collar crime is understudied especially when compared with street crime even though it has more wide-reac

> The researchers noted that this type of elite, white-collar crime is understudied especially when compared with street crime even though it has more wide-reaching consequences. Isn't that something. We spend most of our effort chasing the crime of least consequence? Now why would that be?

umvi 6y ago
It's harder to mentally connect white collar crime with real harm because there are so many abstraction levels between the crime and the victims. Whereas with pretty crime it's easy to see who the victims are.
- newsclues 6y ago
  Who is the victim when people illegally smoke cannabis? Who is the victim when banks steal from millions of people?
  - hansvm 6y ago
    > Who is the victim when banks steal from millions of people The bigger question is who are the criminals? You can't throw the building in jail, and just because a negative emergent behavior manifested doesn't mean any one person had to have taken an action rising to the level of criminal culpability.
    - db579 6y ago
      > just because a negative emergent behavior manifested doesn't mean any one person had to have taken an action rising to the level of criminal culpability. If that is true (and I think it is) I would argue the law is wrong. It should absolutely be the case that senior executives have criminal liability for criminal behaviours that emerge under their stewardship whether or not they personally contributed to them. Either they knew about it in which case they're complicit or they didn't in which case they're negligent. The risk of criminal liability is also the only possible justification for the high current level of CEO pay relative to average salaries at most big name companies.
      - hansvm 6y ago
        > or they didn't in which case they're negligent I think some care should be taken in being too reductive here. If a CEO oversees just 50 people (maybe companies should be capped at smaller sizes?) then there will be at least a 50:1 information reduction even if they spend all their working hours in 100% efficient information transfer. Moreover, in many cases I would expect the bulk of that missing information to be the more negative aspects of the business -- who wants to look bad to their superiors? Adding to that, defaults matter. If by default a CEO is culpable then it's suddenly possible to force them into jail by simply joining as a malicious employee. > The risk of criminal liability is also the only possible justification for the high current level of CEO pay relative to average salaries at most big name companies. Not necessarily (I think the idea is that they're paid a lot because they bring in proportionally more profits/cashflow/etc?), but I agree it's a little fishy that a CEO can take credit for large gains and be handed a golden parachute when a company's fraud sees the light of day.
    - srswtf123 6y ago
      This is absurd. The buck stops with the C-level and, if need be, the board. Toss them in prison, in gen-pop, and see if it doesn’t reform some behavior. Part of the job of running a business is ensuring said business doesn’t run afoul of the law. If that doesn’t happen, well the boss needs to go to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200mm golden parachute. “We can’t figure out who to charge so we charge no one” is not an acceptable answer in a just society — or a society that strives to be just.
    - Ekaros 6y ago
      If we can't hold owners responsible, maybe we should have state take over the company with some reasonable ratio of days to damage/stolen amount of money...
      - hansvm 6y ago
        I agree with you in spirit -- even if it's difficult to distribute the blame for a corporation's misdeeds, _something_ should probably be done about the misbehaving company anyway. I'm curious as to why you think the state taking over temporarily would have positive effects. Would you mind elaborating?
  - acct776 6y ago
    Legally? Their neighbors, who are the ones calling.
- elil17 6y ago
  I don’t think it’s actually that hard for most people to see that wage theft is theft, for example. It’s the choices of lawmakers, the media, prosecutors, and others that minimize white collar crime in the public discourse.
  - Aunche 6y ago
    If you're using wage theft as an example of how the game is rigged, then you also need to consider time theft: logging additional time that wasn't actually worked. Obviously, wage theft is worse, but the reason both aren't prosecuted is because they're difficult to prove, and when it does it caught, it usually gets resolved by other means.
- javajosh 6y ago
  Totally. The number of people who really felt the implication of the Libor scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal) among the general population, for example, is close to 0. Not only this, but term "white collar crime" has been abused to include what is properly termed "implies unwanted externalities", and so it weakens the meaning. Enron executives are not criminals simply because their industry pollutes! Nor are bankers criminals simply because their industry depends entirely on enforcing artificial scarcity and information asymmetry. Crime specifically requires breaking a law! Another related disturbing trend that weakens the concept of "white collar crime" is the "wouldn't you gave done it, too?" argument. That is, to defend cheating or bad faith behavior by arguing that you would have done if you were in the same situation. There is a lot wrong with this kind of argument, and it is similar to "whataboutism" in that it functions as a kind of strawman that tacitly assumes egoism and moral relativism, and moreover projects that lack of principle onto the counter-party. (And if you claim you wouldn't do that, the other person can say you are posturing, etc. A very nasty rhetorical tactic indeed! None of these effects are really new, but I think what is new is that the attention economy has as a side-effect cause an overall drop in the critical thinking skills needed in a large chunk of the population to ensure these cognitive mistakes don't become official policy. There has always been an unofficial bulwark against populism in America, comprised of the "elite" - the well educated, thoughtful, articulate, careful men and women trained in philosophy, morality, and religion, and who are wealthy enough to have time to spend on such matters. Obama was and is such a one. But apocalyptic levels of egoism and intellectual laziness has spread to all corners of our society, even, shockingly, to the elites themselves. (See: Josh Haweley). The net effect is to weaken the notion of "white collar crime" into nothingness, which is great news for those that do it, and terrible news for the rest of us.
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    > Enron executives are not criminals simply because their industry pollutes! Nor are bankers criminals simply because their industry depends entirely on enforcing artificial scarcity and information asymmetry. Not sure about this point. They're only not criminals because their industries can afford lobbyists and few others can.
throwaway3699 6y ago
It's not a conspiracy. Street crime is much easier to prosecute and has far fewer eyes looking onwards. Much easier to abuse the metrics in that area to look good at your job, whereas tackling corporate fraud is expensive, time consuming and likely to attract all manners of unwanted attention, even physical violence and intimidation -- thus making people look worse on paper.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  What is your definition of "conspiracy"?
- jrimbault 6y ago
  Systemic issues/consequences don't need conspiracy to manifest, they're a manifestation of misplaced incentives/causes. I don't think OP implied any conspiracy on any part. I'm sorry to get the big name out, but. It's really part of the Marxist framework that there's mostly no willful conspiracy against the worker class, the balance of power is a result of a complex but understandable system, with some corrupt actors but they don't need to be, they just have conflicting incentives.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The last thing is why Marxist analysis is so revolutionary. It was the first real systemic critique that didn't rely on principles of individual morality, and in essence it's also why it's probably always going to be relevant.
LockAndLol 6y ago
Because you (the people) don't vote for people who actually want to prosecute white-collar criminals. That probably comes from it not being so relatable. Most people understand physical theft and probably think it's easier to catch those thieves. Sure, a big part of the problem is white-collar crooks working in industries that possess a lot of power to manipulate the world we live in, but we can't just absolve ourselves of responsibility. If you think it's a problem, find the most impactful ways you can help resolve it. Simply talking about it and convincing yourself that "you made more people aware of it" is not very impactful if that's all you're doing.
jjcon 6y ago
It may not have direct monetary impacts as large but I would argue the effects of high street crime are much higher and harder to account for. People know that backroom deals by fat cats negatively affect their lives, but they don’t feel physically unsafe because of them. Conversely if street crime is prevalent the people are fearful and feel unsafe in their homes. It only takes one break-in in a neighborhood to put everyone on their toes.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The relationship between feelings of safety and actual crime rate is incidental. Feelings of safety are moreso a product of the media up until a certain threshold we are very far from. Conversely, white collar crime absolutely does cause physical harm, as does most economic ruin, which is highly correlated with morbidity for the less fortunate.
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    > The relationship between feelings of safety and actual crime rate is incidental. Two things that strongly support this are stranger kidnapping and domestic terrorism. Among possibilities that might take loved ones away from us, these are about the least likely. > Feelings of safety are moreso a product of the media The media reports distant tragedies as if they occurred in our own communities, leading the public to carry a sense of threat that doesn't reflect reality. However, the media is parroting (and amplifying) the messages that are given to it from LEO, Gov's and other official channels. The media's shortfall is to trust Gov/LEO messaging, without spending the few moments of analysis to vet it's integrity.
    - throwawayboise 6y ago
      Let's not give the media such a pass as simply trusting Gov/LEO messaging. Their interest is in getting and retaining your attention, and creating fear and anxiety is a proven way to do that. They do it knowingly and with intent.
      - 6y ago
dls2016 6y ago
Some of the other replies are missing the fact that we can look at the history of why police departments were created: to break strikes and chase slaves. The historic record is clear that police were generally created to protect capital.
- dls2016 6y ago
  I am curious about downvotes. This stuff is historical fact. I know someone else commented that my view is American, but the original article is about the (American) SEC... so... I will double down and show evidence from my home state: Pennsylvania. https://www.psp.pa.gov/About-PSP/Documents/Pennsylvania%20State%20Police%20History.pdf https://www.psp.pa.gov/About-PSP/Documents/Pennsylvania%20St... The whole idea of the PSP was to create a less violent force to control labor (compared to the companies' private security solutions). The (downvoting) reader is encouraged to repeat this exercise for their own locality.
- bluefirebrand 6y ago
  This is a very American-centric view of policing.
  - nobodyknowsyoda 6y ago
    "We compiled data on 250+ US public companies involved in corporate securities frauds identified in 1,000+ Securities and Exchange Commission filings over 2005–2013; we randomly selected a comparable control group of 500+ US public companies from Compustat."
SN76477 6y ago
They are too busy chasing bad guys. /s The policing system needs an overhaul
wwwwwwwww 6y ago
> Now why would that be? Who donates money to fund the studies?
dbattaglia 6y ago
The pretty awesome "Philosophize This" podcast* episode on Foucault, where he discusses crime and punishment over the years, makes an interesting point that always stuck with me regarding punishment of white collar crime: "9 times out of 10 they are not going to see the inside of a prison cell because their behavior...doesn't really need much reformation in the eyes of the people in power. Keep doing almost everything you're doing...keep working, keep creating jobs, keep starting new companies and going to badminton on Sundays...just pay your taxes. Whereas the guy that robbed the Taco Bell...it doesn't matter if he marches back into the store...hands over the 85 bucks directly to the manager...baby birds the burrito supreme back into his mouth...9 times out of 10 that guy is going to jail because the goal of the penal system is reforming criminals to fit a pre-existing mold of what a normal person is." Of course this doesn't get into the very real issues of how modern US police departments work, systematic racism and other factors, but it's still an interesting perspective IMO. *transcript: https://www.philosophizethis.org/podcast/episode-121-transcript https://www.philosophizethis.org/podcast/episode-121-transcr...
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  It’s not really for reforming criminals into a normal person, that would require a rehabilitative system purposefully optimizing for lower recidivism rates. What we have is a vengeful, punishment oriented prison system that is designed to bludgeon people for not fitting in, and also incidentally using them for slave labor.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I don't understand the point of prison. Vengeance only makes sense if you have committed a crime so great that you could never undo it and the only way to balance the situation is to take an equal amount of damage as the victim. That's an even stronger argument in favor of prison time for white collar crime because you cannot rehabilitate the perpetrator, you can only punish him. Meanwhile for someone who is prone to violent behavior it is the opposite. That person still has the potential to do less damage in the future.
    - 6y ago
nobodyknowsyoda 6y ago
Cause the collar isn’t the only thing that’s white
andi999 6y ago
Well, somebody claiming it has more wide reaching consequences doesn't make it true. I mean why is white collar crime worse than getting knifed in a backallay?
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Because you can't single-handedly knife a hundred people in a backalley (or at least, not easily...) But you can single handedly sign off on some environmental fraud that kills/maims a hundred people and their unborn children
Rebelgecko 6y ago
I think violent crime has more of a direct impact on individuals emotionally, and so there's a larger reaction to it
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  When the banks crashed the economy in 2008 and millions lost their jobs and homes, people were directly emotionally impacted. Nobody went to jail or admitted fault.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
The big difference is threat of violence, and invasion of personal space. I would rather lose $1000 in the stock market because a company cooked the books than $50 by mugging or home burglary.

umvi 6y ago

It's harder to mentally connect white collar crime with real harm because there are so many abstraction levels between the crime and the victims. Whereas with pretty crime it's easy to see who the victims are.

newsclues 6y ago
Who is the victim when people illegally smoke cannabis? Who is the victim when banks steal from millions of people?
- hansvm 6y ago
  > Who is the victim when banks steal from millions of people The bigger question is who are the criminals? You can't throw the building in jail, and just because a negative emergent behavior manifested doesn't mean any one person had to have taken an action rising to the level of criminal culpability.
  - db579 6y ago
    > just because a negative emergent behavior manifested doesn't mean any one person had to have taken an action rising to the level of criminal culpability. If that is true (and I think it is) I would argue the law is wrong. It should absolutely be the case that senior executives have criminal liability for criminal behaviours that emerge under their stewardship whether or not they personally contributed to them. Either they knew about it in which case they're complicit or they didn't in which case they're negligent. The risk of criminal liability is also the only possible justification for the high current level of CEO pay relative to average salaries at most big name companies.
    - hansvm 6y ago
      > or they didn't in which case they're negligent I think some care should be taken in being too reductive here. If a CEO oversees just 50 people (maybe companies should be capped at smaller sizes?) then there will be at least a 50:1 information reduction even if they spend all their working hours in 100% efficient information transfer. Moreover, in many cases I would expect the bulk of that missing information to be the more negative aspects of the business -- who wants to look bad to their superiors? Adding to that, defaults matter. If by default a CEO is culpable then it's suddenly possible to force them into jail by simply joining as a malicious employee. > The risk of criminal liability is also the only possible justification for the high current level of CEO pay relative to average salaries at most big name companies. Not necessarily (I think the idea is that they're paid a lot because they bring in proportionally more profits/cashflow/etc?), but I agree it's a little fishy that a CEO can take credit for large gains and be handed a golden parachute when a company's fraud sees the light of day.
  - srswtf123 6y ago
    This is absurd. The buck stops with the C-level and, if need be, the board. Toss them in prison, in gen-pop, and see if it doesn’t reform some behavior. Part of the job of running a business is ensuring said business doesn’t run afoul of the law. If that doesn’t happen, well the boss needs to go to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200mm golden parachute. “We can’t figure out who to charge so we charge no one” is not an acceptable answer in a just society — or a society that strives to be just.
  - Ekaros 6y ago
    If we can't hold owners responsible, maybe we should have state take over the company with some reasonable ratio of days to damage/stolen amount of money...
    - hansvm 6y ago
      I agree with you in spirit -- even if it's difficult to distribute the blame for a corporation's misdeeds, _something_ should probably be done about the misbehaving company anyway. I'm curious as to why you think the state taking over temporarily would have positive effects. Would you mind elaborating?
- acct776 6y ago
  Legally? Their neighbors, who are the ones calling.
elil17 6y ago
I don’t think it’s actually that hard for most people to see that wage theft is theft, for example. It’s the choices of lawmakers, the media, prosecutors, and others that minimize white collar crime in the public discourse.
- Aunche 6y ago
  If you're using wage theft as an example of how the game is rigged, then you also need to consider time theft: logging additional time that wasn't actually worked. Obviously, wage theft is worse, but the reason both aren't prosecuted is because they're difficult to prove, and when it does it caught, it usually gets resolved by other means.
javajosh 6y ago
Totally. The number of people who really felt the implication of the Libor scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal) among the general population, for example, is close to 0. Not only this, but term "white collar crime" has been abused to include what is properly termed "implies unwanted externalities", and so it weakens the meaning. Enron executives are not criminals simply because their industry pollutes! Nor are bankers criminals simply because their industry depends entirely on enforcing artificial scarcity and information asymmetry. Crime specifically requires breaking a law! Another related disturbing trend that weakens the concept of "white collar crime" is the "wouldn't you gave done it, too?" argument. That is, to defend cheating or bad faith behavior by arguing that you would have done if you were in the same situation. There is a lot wrong with this kind of argument, and it is similar to "whataboutism" in that it functions as a kind of strawman that tacitly assumes egoism and moral relativism, and moreover projects that lack of principle onto the counter-party. (And if you claim you wouldn't do that, the other person can say you are posturing, etc. A very nasty rhetorical tactic indeed! None of these effects are really new, but I think what is new is that the attention economy has as a side-effect cause an overall drop in the critical thinking skills needed in a large chunk of the population to ensure these cognitive mistakes don't become official policy. There has always been an unofficial bulwark against populism in America, comprised of the "elite" - the well educated, thoughtful, articulate, careful men and women trained in philosophy, morality, and religion, and who are wealthy enough to have time to spend on such matters. Obama was and is such a one. But apocalyptic levels of egoism and intellectual laziness has spread to all corners of our society, even, shockingly, to the elites themselves. (See: Josh Haweley). The net effect is to weaken the notion of "white collar crime" into nothingness, which is great news for those that do it, and terrible news for the rest of us.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  > Enron executives are not criminals simply because their industry pollutes! Nor are bankers criminals simply because their industry depends entirely on enforcing artificial scarcity and information asymmetry. Not sure about this point. They're only not criminals because their industries can afford lobbyists and few others can.

throwaway3699 6y ago

It's not a conspiracy. Street crime is much easier to prosecute and has far fewer eyes looking onwards. Much easier to abuse the metrics in that area to look good at your job, whereas tackling corporate fraud is expensive, time consuming and likely to attract all manners of unwanted attention, even physical violence and intimidation -- thus making people look worse on paper.

wombatmobile 6y ago
What is your definition of "conspiracy"?
jrimbault 6y ago
Systemic issues/consequences don't need conspiracy to manifest, they're a manifestation of misplaced incentives/causes. I don't think OP implied any conspiracy on any part. I'm sorry to get the big name out, but. It's really part of the Marxist framework that there's mostly no willful conspiracy against the worker class, the balance of power is a result of a complex but understandable system, with some corrupt actors but they don't need to be, they just have conflicting incentives.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The last thing is why Marxist analysis is so revolutionary. It was the first real systemic critique that didn't rely on principles of individual morality, and in essence it's also why it's probably always going to be relevant.

LockAndLol 6y ago

Because you (the people) don't vote for people who actually want to prosecute white-collar criminals. That probably comes from it not being so relatable. Most people understand physical theft and probably think it's easier to catch those thieves. Sure, a big part of the problem is white-collar crooks working in industries that possess a lot of power to manipulate the world we live in, but we can't just absolve ourselves of responsibility. If you think it's a problem, find the most impactful ways you can help resolve it. Simply talking about it and convincing yourself that "you made more people aware of it" is not very impactful if that's all you're doing.

jjcon 6y ago

It may not have direct monetary impacts as large but I would argue the effects of high street crime are much higher and harder to account for. People know that backroom deals by fat cats negatively affect their lives, but they don’t feel physically unsafe because of them. Conversely if street crime is prevalent the people are fearful and feel unsafe in their homes. It only takes one break-in in a neighborhood to put everyone on their toes.

sudosysgen 6y ago
The relationship between feelings of safety and actual crime rate is incidental. Feelings of safety are moreso a product of the media up until a certain threshold we are very far from. Conversely, white collar crime absolutely does cause physical harm, as does most economic ruin, which is highly correlated with morbidity for the less fortunate.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  > The relationship between feelings of safety and actual crime rate is incidental. Two things that strongly support this are stranger kidnapping and domestic terrorism. Among possibilities that might take loved ones away from us, these are about the least likely. > Feelings of safety are moreso a product of the media The media reports distant tragedies as if they occurred in our own communities, leading the public to carry a sense of threat that doesn't reflect reality. However, the media is parroting (and amplifying) the messages that are given to it from LEO, Gov's and other official channels. The media's shortfall is to trust Gov/LEO messaging, without spending the few moments of analysis to vet it's integrity.
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    Let's not give the media such a pass as simply trusting Gov/LEO messaging. Their interest is in getting and retaining your attention, and creating fear and anxiety is a proven way to do that. They do it knowingly and with intent.
    - 6y ago

dls2016 6y ago

Some of the other replies are missing the fact that we can look at the history of why police departments were created: to break strikes and chase slaves. The historic record is clear that police were generally created to protect capital.

dls2016 6y ago
I am curious about downvotes. This stuff is historical fact. I know someone else commented that my view is American, but the original article is about the (American) SEC... so... I will double down and show evidence from my home state: Pennsylvania. https://www.psp.pa.gov/About-PSP/Documents/Pennsylvania%20State%20Police%20History.pdf https://www.psp.pa.gov/About-PSP/Documents/Pennsylvania%20St... The whole idea of the PSP was to create a less violent force to control labor (compared to the companies' private security solutions). The (downvoting) reader is encouraged to repeat this exercise for their own locality.
bluefirebrand 6y ago
This is a very American-centric view of policing.
- nobodyknowsyoda 6y ago
  "We compiled data on 250+ US public companies involved in corporate securities frauds identified in 1,000+ Securities and Exchange Commission filings over 2005–2013; we randomly selected a comparable control group of 500+ US public companies from Compustat."

SN76477 6y ago

They are too busy chasing bad guys. /s The policing system needs an overhaul

wwwwwwwww 6y ago

> Now why would that be? Who donates money to fund the studies?

dbattaglia 6y ago

The pretty awesome "Philosophize This" podcast* episode on Foucault, where he discusses crime and punishment over the years, makes an interesting point that always stuck with me regarding punishment of white collar crime: "9 times out of 10 they are not going to see the inside of a prison cell because their behavior...doesn't really need much reformation in the eyes of the people in power. Keep doing almost everything you're doing...keep working, keep creating jobs, keep starting new companies and going to badminton on Sundays...just pay your taxes. Whereas the guy that robbed the Taco Bell...it doesn't matter if he marches back into the store...hands over the 85 bucks directly to the manager...baby birds the burrito supreme back into his mouth...9 times out of 10 that guy is going to jail because the goal of the penal system is reforming criminals to fit a pre-existing mold of what a normal person is." Of course this doesn't get into the very real issues of how modern US police departments work, systematic racism and other factors, but it's still an interesting perspective IMO. *transcript: https://www.philosophizethis.org/podcast/episode-121-transcript https://www.philosophizethis.org/podcast/episode-121-transcr...

bobthepanda 6y ago
It’s not really for reforming criminals into a normal person, that would require a rehabilitative system purposefully optimizing for lower recidivism rates. What we have is a vengeful, punishment oriented prison system that is designed to bludgeon people for not fitting in, and also incidentally using them for slave labor.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I don't understand the point of prison. Vengeance only makes sense if you have committed a crime so great that you could never undo it and the only way to balance the situation is to take an equal amount of damage as the victim. That's an even stronger argument in favor of prison time for white collar crime because you cannot rehabilitate the perpetrator, you can only punish him. Meanwhile for someone who is prone to violent behavior it is the opposite. That person still has the potential to do less damage in the future.
  - 6y ago

nobodyknowsyoda 6y ago

Cause the collar isn’t the only thing that’s white

andi999 6y ago

Well, somebody claiming it has more wide reaching consequences doesn't make it true. I mean why is white collar crime worse than getting knifed in a backallay?

BoorishBears 6y ago
Because you can't single-handedly knife a hundred people in a backalley (or at least, not easily...) But you can single handedly sign off on some environmental fraud that kills/maims a hundred people and their unborn children

Rebelgecko 6y ago

I think violent crime has more of a direct impact on individuals emotionally, and so there's a larger reaction to it

adamcstephens 6y ago
When the banks crashed the economy in 2008 and millions lost their jobs and homes, people were directly emotionally impacted. Nobody went to jail or admitted fault.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

The big difference is threat of violence, and invasion of personal space. I would rather lose $1000 in the stock market because a company cooked the books than $50 by mugging or home burglary.