The varied misdeeds denoted by Ross give an early hint of both the value of the concept and the difficulties that have plagued its use. The value is essentially social and evocative. It connotes not a particular type of crime or a statutory violation, but a concern for some combination of abuse of trust, authority, status, or position. In a society whose criminal justice system deals mainly with common crimes and common offenders, it bespeaks a concern for the misdeeds of the haves rather than the have-nots, and it raises the specter of class bias in law enforcement. However, its signifying power is precisely its weakness as an analytical tool, for its meaning shifts with changes in the character of society and in the underlying values and interests of the varied scholars and policymakers who invoke it. It is thus a distinctively social, rather than legal, concept, one suffused with vagueness and ambiguity.
STANTON WHEELER
DAN M. KAHAN
See also CLASS AND CRIME; CORPORATE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY; CRIME CAUSATION: ECONOMIC THEORIES; CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM; ECONOMIC CRIME: ANTI-TRUST OFFENSES; ECONOMIC CRIME: TAX OFFENSES; FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
User Comments Add a comment…