***Note for Blog*** Discussion was based on Martha Stewart's insider trading***
I think the primary factor in Stewart's criminal behavior was her
rational decsion to commit a crime; however, apects of differential
association theory can be used to decribe the environment she was in.
In Sutherland's final version of differential association theory,
there are 4 major points. First, that crime is a learned behavior;
second, that it is learned from interaction with participants
who hold shared values; third, that participants are members of
intimate personal groups ; and finally, that two things are learned,
techniques of crime and values/rationales for criminal
decsion-making (or as Sutherland terms them, definitions).
(Williams & McShane, 2014) From the abnormally high rate of
insider scandals at the time, we can see that the potential for such
associates to exist in her environment. To counter, though, it must
be stressed that Sutherland viewed cultural conflict as a primary
factor in his concept of differential association theory. Williams
and McShane assert that “ Sutherland viewed cultural conflict as
producing social disorganization (the 'inconsistencies and lack of
harmony') and, thus, crime” and further that “Sutherland viewed
crime as a consequence of conflicting values; that is, the individual
followed culturally approved behavior that was
disapproved (and
set in law) by the larger American society.” (2014, p69). The
Martha Stewarts and other insider trading criminals of Wall Street
were members of the subculture that SET cultural values for society,
and couldn't be interpeted as being in conflict with them...except
perhaps as we look at them from the view of strain/anomie theory.
Again, I think that Stewart made a rational decision to break the
law, but that her case can be described in terms of anomie/strain
theory. The “strain” in this theiry results from conflicts
between cultural goals (such as wealth and societal standing) and
institutional guidelines. Merton states that “
To
say that these two elements, culture goals and institutional norms,
operate jointly is not to say that the ranges of alternative
behaviors and aims bear some constant relation to one another. The
emphasis upon certain goals may vary independently of the degree of
emphasis upon institutional means” (Williams & McShane, 1998,
p.124). Merton then goes on to clarify that “when the aim of
victory is shorn of its institutional trappings and success in
contests becomes construed as 'winning the game' rather than 'winning
through circumscribed modes of activity,' a premium is implicitly set
upon the use, of illegitimate but technically efficient means.”
(Williams & McShane, 1998, p.124). This can be decribed as
Adoption II, or innovation. And yet again, I must assert that it was
Stewarts decision set the value of her cultural goals ahead of the
institutional guidelines to legitimately attain them.
Can other sociological theories,
such as focal concern, differential opportunity, and subculture
theories, potentially explain Stewart's behavior? How?
Cloward, Ohlin, and Miller seemed to focus on specifically on
lower-class environments, which do not apply to Stewart.
For a disturbing perspective on Cloward's views, research the
“Cloward-Piven Strategy” for destroying a capitalist republic,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward-Piven_Strategy
White-collar crime can be more appropriately be explained through
Classical rationales than through Positivist rationales. Indeed, the
prevalence of “wealthy” criminals can be seen as a
counter-example to many Positivist schools in which poverty is THE
cause of crime. There are other potential factors as well; America
is subject to the guiding myth of the “outlaw hero”, and popular
culture has a long list of Hollywood movies in which the bad guy is
the hero of the movie. Not all of these movies have a machine gun
wielding gangster as the hero, either; the hero of 1987's
Wall
Street was a white-collar criminal who famously decried “Greed
is good!”
I also wanted to note that Stewart was convicted of making false
statements to the federal government, obstruction of justice, and
conspiracy to make false statements and obstruct justice. Although
these crimes were based on her insider trading deviancy, they are
crimes against the state, and in a state that is acting in good
faith, these are more serious offenses then insider trading. It is
also likely that Stewart was a scapegoat for the finacial industry
during a time when the market had crashed
,
and people were looking for heads. Following this idea, it is
possible that Stewart would not have been investigated in a
"business-as-usual" environment.
.
References
Williams, F. & McShane, M. (1998) Criminology
Theory: Selected Classic Readingss (2nd edition). Anderson
Publishing Co.
Williams, F. & McShane, M. (2014) Criminology Theory
(6th edition). Pearson
No comments:
Post a Comment