Raising Consciousness of White Collar Crime
Raising awareness of white-collar crime is vital for a number of reasons. As such, white-collar crimes have been identified as serious problems for governments, institutions, and businesses (Friedrichs, 2006). It is essential that all establishments be more watchful of the crime.
When individuals are informed about white-collar crimes, they can detect, evaluate, and avert natural and artificial threats to the welfare of persons and the setups of administrations. Moreover, adequate knowledge about the crime will enable organizations to recover from the damages caused by the crimes and their associated risks. In this regard, organisation should raise the awareness of this type of fraud to ensure that the crime is prevented before it occurs.
Several strategies may be utilized in enhancing the knowledge of white-collar crimes (Friedrichs, 2006). For instance, organisations can come up with fraud policies. The policies should be clear and should be communicated to employees. The policies should stipulate the conditions under which a white-collar crime is committed. Similarly, the policies should highlight the expected penalties for committing the crime. With the above strategy, individuals or organizations that are likely to commit the offense will be informed. Equally, organizations should undertake fraud prevention check-ups occasionally. Through the check-ups, white-collar crimes will be identified and prevented before they occur. Through training and workshops, employees can be educated on detecting and preventing crimes. By doing so, their awareness of white-collar crimes will be enhanced.
Benefits and Limitations of White Collar Crime Convictions
Sanctions against white-collar crimes are classified as either positive or negative. Sanctions are the most appropriate ways of upholding compliance and preventing impending offenses. Positive consequences comprise endowments, rewards, credit, guarantees, trophies, and awards (Friedrichs, 2006). As such, positive sanctions have a number of benefits. They enhance freedom of choice. Through this, they are usually viewed as authentic and less likely to be estranging. Similarly, they enhance learning of preferred conduct and prompt the required collaboration and aid from the third parties. In addition, they nurture collaborative pride in a company. Despite their usefulness, it should be noted that positive sanctions have limitations (Friedrichs, 2006). For instance, praise and rewards can be very effective in safeguarding compliance from companies. However, they can be unscrupulous and paternalistic. Such incidences can be experienced when sanctions appear to enhance bribe in exchange for moral behaviour. Similarly, positive sanctions can enhance an environment of distrusts in a company.
Compared with positive sanctions, negative sanctions are more preferred when addressing white-collar crimes. Negative sanctions can be imprisonment, restitution, and confiscation, loss of charter, fines, adverse publicity, compensation, or occupational disqualification (Friedrichs, 2006). Negative sanction methods are usually punitive and should be used as deterrent mechanisms. It is a fact that a number of white-collar offenders fear being incarcerated or fined. Therefore, the methods can act as a powerful deterrent whenever they are implemented. A major disadvantage of negative sanctions is that the penalties are not always appropriate to the crime committed. For instance, some sanction methods are perceived as more severe. Similarly, some negative sanctions do not discourage offenders due to reoffending charges.
Coercive Response and Deterrence in Relation to White Collar Crime
Coercive response asserts that the criminal justice structure ought to be humane and fair. On the other hand, deterrence asserts that individuals’ rights and sovereignty should not be upheld (Friedrichs, 2006). It treats them as a means of accomplishing greater social objectives or discouraging others from committing white-collar crimes.
The main advantage of coercive response is that it decreases the targeted cause’s liberty and responsibility. Through this, the targeted agents are discouraged from omitting white-collar crimes. Even though coercive response is perceived to be the best approach to addressing white-collar crimes, it should be noted that it is impractical in some circumstances. For instance, even the most powerful and reliable threats may not prevent individuals from engaging in white-collar crimes. Therefore, the authority sustained by coercive response is ultimately unsustainable.
On the other hand, the main benefit associated with deterrence is the notion of a short sharp shock. It is believed that the use of a disparate penalty prevents future offending. According to Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, a grief of an offender can stop the sorrow of a number of individuals. Opponents of deterrence argue that its disadvantages outweigh its advantages. According to them, the penalty should be appropriate to the crime committed. However, deterrence has a tendency to be more severe. Similarly, the sanction does not discourage offenders due to reoffending charges. Similarly, some proofs have indicated that individuals are more likely to reoffend when slapped with a deterrence verdict.
Specific Role of Responses to White Collar Crime Cases
There are a number of responses aimed at preventing white-collar crimes. The just deserts response states that white-collar criminals should be proportionate with the moral magnitude of their wrongdoings. General deterrence model asserts that raising the threat of apprehension and retribution in organisations prevents employees from engaging in white-collar crimes (Joyce, 2013). Specific deterrence targets the individual. Thus, punishment is intended to deter members of society from committing crime. Probation is another form of sanction that can be used in preventing white-collar crimes. As such, probation is authorized by the judicial system. An individual is placed under probation whenever he is found liable of committing a white-collar offense. Probation enables an individual to stay in his locality under the watchful eyes of a probation officer.
In organisations, white-collar crimes can be prevented by self-regulation rather than through legislation. Self-regulations have a number of benefits compared to legislations (Joyce, 2013). It has been confirmed that insiders have a higher chance of detecting and preventing white-collar crimes. They are in a better position to carry out more recurrent and comprehensive examinations compared to external regulators. Fine is another form of deterring white-collar crimes in the organisation. Individuals found liable of committing white-collar crimes are fined certain amount of fees with respect to the crime committed. Organisations that commit white-collar crimes at times come up with restitutions to the victims of crimes. By doing so, the offender pays for the damages caused by the illegal act. Equally, an organisation or an offender of white-collar crime may be required to undertake a community service. Through this, the community stands to benefit the most. To be effective, community services should be monitored closely to ensure that the offender serves the community as stipulated.
Occupational disqualification is another sanction that can be used in preventing white-collar crimes (Joyce, 2013). The method is punitive and should be used as a deterrent mechanism. Another sanction that can be applied in ending these crimes is incarceration. It has been established that a number of white-collar offenders fear being incarcerated. Therefore, the method can act as a powerful deterrent if implemented effectively. When white-collar crime is committed by an organisation, corporate dissolution may be implemented as a punishment. Through this, other organisations are deterred from committing the same crime.
References
Friedrichs, D. (2006). Trusted criminals: White collar crime in contemporary society. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub.
Joyce, P. (2013). Criminal Justice an Introduction. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.