Criminal opportunities

1. Criminal opportunities Criminal opportunities are arrangements or situations that offer potential for criminal reward with little apparent risk of detection or penalty(Coleman 1987)

2. White collar crime – the criminally predisposed Tempted individuals possess qualities or experiences that make them more likely than peers who lack these distinctions to weigh the exploitation of lure. The supply of predisposed organizations and tempted individuals varies temporally and spatially

3. The most striking revolution of the twentieth century was the rapid expansion of the population of organizations. In the United States the number grew fivefold between 1917 and 1969, and in the past three decades alone it tripled. As a result the population of profit, non-profit and governmental organizations in the United States rival in number the population of individuals

4. Characteristics of individuals sentenced for federal street crimes and white collar crimes, United States, 1995-2002 Characteristics Street offenders white collar offenders Race (percent African American and Hispanic) 48.5 32.3 Gender (percent male) 92.8 72.7 Education Less than high school 38.6 17.1 High school graduate 39.7 28.7 Some college 18.4 30.2 College graduate 2.8 19.5 Age Under 21 10.4 1.6 21-30 41.8 24.6 31-40 29.1 29.4 41-50 15.7 25.0 50+ 31.8 44.2 Average age 31.8 44.2 Average number of cases Annually 2.600 8.205

5. Working class criminals White collar crime generally is not committed by working class criminals. The work performed by the working classes is unlike worked performed by those situated higher in the class structure

6. Work Much of the work done by working class citizens is physically hazardous or mind numbing. Normally they work under the direct supervision of and on schedules constructed by others. Subordination is one of the most important distinguishing characteristics of working-class employment. Most workers share a common status, and prospects for upward mobility are limited in any case.

7. Not surprisingly also, in their work worlds those who work too rapidly or maintain distance from co-workers in hopes of being noticed by superiors are derided as “rate busters” or “company men. One does not want to give the impression of being too eager or of trying too hard. (Dunk, 1991)

8. “In the factories I’ve worked in, if you talk down to another worker you can expect to be “punched out”. The basic operating procedure of academia and graduate school …..are based on competitive game playing, which in working class setting would make you an outcast…. In my previous work environments this type of behaviour had specific names: “brown nosing” and so on ….. The modus operandi among middle-class careerists is based on competition.” (Langston 1993)

9. Competition In competitive cultures, people generally evaluate personal success in terms of wealth and material possessions. Competition need not be economic, however. Establishing or maintaining respect by peers for exceptional achievement is priority for many, but humans compete for attention from superiors, assignments, and career advancement.

10. At each new level of my career, I had pushed my goals higher. When I was an associate, I wanted to be a vice president. When I became a vice president, I wanted to be a senior vice president …. When I was earning $20.000 a year, I thought, I can make $ 100.000 ….. When I was making a $ 1 million, I thought I can make $ 3 million. There was always somebody one rung higher on the ladder, and I could never stop wondering: is he really twice as good as I am? Ambition eclipsed rationally. I was unable to find fulfilment in realistic limits … The hours grew longer, the numbers grew bigger, the stakes grew more critical, the fire grew even hotter

11. I think I was arrogant enough at the time to believe that I could cut corners. Not care about details that were going on and not think about consequences. One of my great faults is – I refused to deal with everyday details that people have to deal with to make sure that mistakes aren’t made. And I think, in that way, there may have been arrogance where I didn’t have to deal with details – that these details were meant for other people, not for me (Waksal, 2003)

12. Enron At Enron corporation management policies required each year that employees be evaluated on a forced curve so that 15 percent would receive performance ratings of unacceptable (Cruver, 2002). The pervasive insecurity generated in competitive environments like this provides powerful motivational pushes towards misconduct. Desire to be the former is fuelled in part by fear of becoming the latter

13. Suffice it to say any annual ranking that plummeted you lower than your previous assessment gave many people a reason to start a course of antidepressants or switch from beer to Bourbon. A reduction in your ranking status would affect your salary, your self-esteem, your standing among your peers, and, worse of all, your bonus. Once wounded with an “issues” ranking, like a stricken animal in a herd, other employees would begin to shun you as you might draw lions” (Brewer, 2002)