......

1. The conceptof white-collarcrime hasa longand controversial history.Issuesregarding
itsdefiningfeaturesorcharacteristicshave beenheavilydebatedamongcriminologists—so
much sothat no widespreaddefinitioncurrentlyexists.The difficultiesassociatedwithdefiningwhite-collar
crime,inpart, stem
fromthe fact thatit isconceptuallydifferentfromothertypesof crime.Specifically,whitecollarcrime isnotan
official,legallyrecognizedcategory;rather,itisasociological construct
that doesnotclearlydelineate whatactionsoractivitiesshould
Some scholars,forexample,argue thatthe definingfeaturesof white-collarcrime should
be basedon the characteristicsof the offender(Sutherland,1983); othersmaintainthatthe
characteristicsof the actual offensesare more useful forstudyingandunderstandingwhite-collar
crime (Edelhertz,1970).Dependingonwhichdefinitionisused,the measurementof whitecollarcrime is
affected—inparticular,the use of differentdefinitionsaffectswhoisidentifiedas
a white-collaroffenderandwhatconclusionscanbe drawn aboutwhite-collaroffending.The
followingparagraphsprovide anoverview of the debate regardinghow white-collarcrime should
be defined andmeasured.Itdoessobyreviewingdifferentdefinitionsof white-collarcrime and
addressingthe conceptual andmethodological issuesassociatedwitheachperspective.Also
discussedinthissectionare the limitationsof the available datafromwhichgeneralizations
regardingwhite-collarcrime canbe made,especiallyastheypertaintoincarceratedwhite-collar

2. offenders.
Offender-BasedPerspectives
The most well-knowndefinitionof white-collarcrime wasputforthby EdwinSutherland
(1949/1983), whosaw itas a crime committedbya personof respectabilityandhighsocial
statusin the course of hisoccupation.Suchoffenders,Sutherlandnoted,were tobe
differentiatedfrompersonsof lowsocial status,whoviolate the lawsdesigned toregulate their