,,,,,,,

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
[1/13, 2:23 AM] ���:occupational activity,aswellasthose of highsocial status,whocommitcrimesunrelated
to their
occupation.Withitsemphasisonthe offender’ssocial statusandreputation,Sutherland’s
definitionisthe mostwell-knownandinfluential exampleof the offender-basedapproachto
understandingwhite-collarcrime (Benson&Simpson,2015). Inaddition,Sutherlandargued
that civil andadministrativeviolationsshouldalsobe countedaswhite-collarcrimes.
From the beginning,Sutherland’sdefinitionelicitedcontroversyamonglegalscholars,who
chidedhimforincludingviolationsthatwere notconsideredcriminal,suchasdecisionsagainst
companiesbyadministrative andregulatoryagencies(Tappan,1947). That isto say,Sutherland
was criticizedbymembersof the legal community,whoarguedthatonlyactspunishableby
criminal lawconstitute true crime.Sutherlandrespondedbynotingthatmanycivil law

3. proceedingsmirrorthose of criminal law,andthattheirexclusionfromanalysesarbitrarilylimits
the range of white-collarcrimes.
ScholarsalsoquestionedwhetherSutherland’semphasisonthe offender’ssocial status
shouldbe a central feature of white-collarcrime.Indeed,while hisintentionwastoshedlighton
upperworldimpropriety,whichwasoftentimesomittedfromanalysesdue toclass-biased
research,Sutherland’sdefinitionposesanarrayof measurementchallenges.AsBensonand
Simpson(2015) pointedout,“the mainprobleminusingsocial statusasa definingelementof
crime isthat it cannot thenbe usedas an explanatoryvariable becauseitisnotallowedtovary
independentlyof crime”(p.9).Assuch,it preventsresearchersfromassessinghow an
individual’ssocialstatusaffectsthe type andseriousnessof white-collaroffensestheycommit.
So,while fraudmaybe committedbybotha corporate executiveandanentry-level employee,
onlythe formerwouldfitthe offender-baseddefinitionof white-collarcrime.Inotherwords,the
opportunitystructuresthatfacilitate criminal activityforexecutiveemployeesandCEOsdiffer
[1/13, 2:23 AM] ���:dramaticallyfromthose workinginentry-levelpositions,andfocusingsolelyonsocial
status
completelyomitswhite-collar-type crimescommittedbythe lattergroupfromanalyses.
Additionally,adoptinganoffender-basedapproachmakesitdifficulttouse officialrecordsand

4. data, since mostsourcesdonot have the informationneededtoclassifypeopleonthe basisof
theirrespectabilityorsocial status.
Offense-BasedPerspectives
In orderto remedythe issuesassociatedwithusingoffender-basedapproaches,scholars
beganto examine white-collarcrime inastatus-neutral fashion,withaprimaryfocusonthe
illegal nature of the act.HerbertEdelhertz(1970) wasthe firstscholar to embrace this
perspective,commonlyreferredtoasthe offense-basedapproach.He proposedthatwhite-collar
crime be definedas“illegal actscommittedbynon-physical meansandbyconcealmentorguile
to obtainmoneyorproperty,to avoidpaymentorlossof moneyor property,orto obtain
businessorpersonal advantage”(Pp.19-20).Asopposedtooffender-baseddefinitions,then,the
offense-basedperspective defineswhite-collarcrime accordingtothe meansbywhichan offense
iscarried out—thatis,ina non-physical,deceptive manner.Similarly,Shapiro(1990,p. 17)
positedthata definingfeature of white-collarcrime isthe violationof abuse ortrust,and thatthe
notionof white-collarcrime isbestunderstoodwhenthe characteristicsof offendersare
separatedfromtheirtransgressions.Provocatively,she arguedthatresearchersshouldfocuson
“collaringthe crime insteadof the criminal.”

5. Offense-basedapproachestostudyingwhite-collarcrime have gainedpopularityamong
scholarsfor a numberof reasons.First,asBensonand Simpson(2015) explain,because offensebaseddefinitions
make no mentionof the actor’ssocial statusor the social locationof the crime,
theyare free tovary independentlyof the actand can therefore be usedaspredictorvariables.In
[1/13, 2:24 AM] ���:otherwords,offense-baseddefinitionsallowresearcherstoexaminevariationinhow
one’s
social statusinfluencesthe nature of—aswell asthe social andlegal response to—the whitecollaroffense.
Second,researchersare able tocompare and determinewhetherwhite-collar
offensescommittedduringthe course of one’soccupationdifferfromoffensescommittedin
othersettings.Lastly,offense-baseddefinitionsallow researcherstomore easilyuse official data
sourceswhendrawingsamplesof white-collaroffenders, since theyonlyneedtoidentifythe
individualswhoseoffensesmeetthe establishedcriteria(e.g.,non-physical crimesbasedon
deception).
While the offense-basedperspective hasbeenacceptedbymanyresearchers,other
scholarstake issue with the definition,whichtheyview asmissingorignoringsome of the most
importantcharacteristicsof white-collarcrime.Forinstance,ithasbeenarguedthatoffensebaseddefinitions
endup focusingonrelativelytrivial crimescommittedbyordinarypeople who
somehowfoundtheirwayintothe criminal justice system.Thisapproachleadsresearchersto
neglectthe role of the powerful corporationsandexecutivesthatoriginallypiquedSutherland’s

6. interest(Braithwaite,1985; Geis,1996; Wheeleret al.,1988a). For example,accordingtothe
offense-basedperspective,the alcoholicwhoconshisfriendoutof a bottle of whiskey
technicallymeetsthe criteriaforawhite-collaroffender.Inthe same
way,some scholarspositthat white-collarcrimesconstitute nothingmore than“crimesof
specializedaccess,”whichcanoccur at any occupational level andwithinalarge demographic,
rangingfromteenagerstocorporate executives(Felson,2002). The mainproblemisthat
offense-baseddefinitionsof white-collarcrime,whichfocusonoffensespertainingtomoneyand
property,oftenendupanalyzingindividualswith“blue collars”(Braithwaite,1985). Indoing
so,offense-basedapproachesfrequentlyomitfromtheiranalysescrimescommittedbypowerful:individuals
and corporations,whoare able to avoidofficial labelingorsanctioninginthe first
place and thusneverappearinginresearchsamples.