Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Monday, 3 December 2012 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)By Rowan Bosworth-Davies, author of Fraud in the City: Too Good To Be True, (Penguin 1988), a former head of investigations at regulator FIMBRA (Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association) and a former Scotland Yard Fraud Squad detective. He blogs at Rowan Bosworth Davies blogspot and tweets at @RowanBosworth Cross posted from Ian Frasers blog
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/why-it-is-essential-that-criminal-bankers-are-prosecuted.html#6QCHuyHMzl8bBvOj.99
...There is a growing groundswell of informed opinion among modern commentators and even some politicians that financial regulators should be far more willing to bring criminal charges against those financial practitioners whose actions should be construed as more than just negligent or incompetent.
I have never understood why white collar criminals should be treated any differently from any other criminals, but the fact remains that they are treated differently, and it has been so for many years. The phenomenon was first recorded in a book entitled White Collar Crime by the American criminologist Edwin Sutherland, published in 1949. He pointed out that
In White Collar Crime, Sutherland argued that the behaviour of respectable people, from the upper socio-economic class, frequently exhibits all the essential attributes of crime, but that it is rarely dealt with as such. This situation had arisen, he said, from the tendency for systems of criminal justice in Western societies to favour certain economically and politically powerful groups and to disfavour others notably the poor and unskilled who comprise the bulk of the visibly criminal population. He added:-
Another American sociologist William Chambliss put it as follows:-
In his research, Sutherland discovered that the white collar criminal has no real fear of regulators ,and that actions by the regulators were considered to be an unfortunate interlude, but had little ability to exclude malefactors from continuing to trade. Sutherland found that the actions of regulators were seen as a bureaucratic part of a governmental process, and not considered to possess a status which would diminish the perpetrator in the eyes of his social peers. He said:-
...In what is the most systematic discussion of 19th-century business crime to date, George Robb (1992) notes the reluctance of the legal and criminal justice systems to intervene in the social differentiation of the treatment of white collar criminals. He states;
He highlighted the fact that the harshest sentences for white collar offences were invariably reserved for embezzling clerks rather than leading businessmen. He argued that another factor caused such leniency:-
MORE RAMBLING