White collar crimes are increasing from time to time. This is as a result of increased self centered interests of professional as well as lack of respect to code of conducts and ethical requirement. It is one of crimes which controlled easily due to many forms and complex applications which take place in many cases. Different professional have different approached when it comes to white collar crime. It differs from one industry to the other, but there are some similarities between similar departments. There are similar patterns for example, when it comes to crimes in the same industry, despite the fact that they keep on changing (Friedrichs, 2010). This brings a challenge when it comes to administration of justice concerning these forms of crime. Professional bodies keep on reviewing their guidelines only to find that there are loopholes which are used to perform white collar crimes.
The shaming perspective is one of ways through which white collar crime can be reduced. This is an internal control which can be used to strengthen the social control as applied in fighting this category of crime. Shaming approach can be used where shame related emotions can be induced such that an individual would feel not worth it to be involved in an action which will should shameful. Reintegrative shaming occurs when the key focus on the act, not the individual who perpetrated. This gives the opportunity to review positively his/her act and reflect on what he/she has done. The person remains in the mainstream of the society and is not isolated. Reintegrative shaming is therefore, an appropriate strategy of fighting white collar crime as it installs a sense of caution from within an individual who may decide to avoid crime and avoid shamefulness (Murphy & Harris, 2007).
Deterrence is a legal process where punishment is applied to deter perpetrators from undertaking an offence. This approach is different from retributivism which calls for reduced application of punishment. There are two assumptions in the application of deterrence in dealing with crime. The first assumption is that a punishment imposed individual deters him/her from committing such a crime or others in the future. Secondly, the fear that punishment to be applied after committing crime reduces chances of a crime from been committed. There are two types of deterrence including specific and general deterrence
General deterrence is based on the concept that when a person chose to commit a crime he/she is ready for the punishment. Threats for punishment are applied to control or reduce cases of punishment. In this case, if a professional knows that there are consequences out of his action, he tends to act within the required standards as provided by law. Strictest punishment discourages a profession or an organizational officer from committing crimes which will lead to harsh treatment thereafter (Weisburd, Chayet & Waring, 1990). This approach is effective is it is prevent in nature, which can be extremely effective compared with after crime responses.
Despite the fact that it can lead to reduced crime due to its preventive nature, there are some aspects which reduce its effectiveness. Despite the punishment, there are times when pressure from friends, clients, workmates and peer group influences an individual to act in a given manner which is against expectations. In another insistence, some individuals act under the influence of alcohol and drugs which implies that they may not fear punishment as a reason for not committing a white collar job (Rodder, 2009). They only want to achieve what they want but care less about consequences. In this case, individual lacks rational thinking and act in an awkward manner.
Specific deterrence involves punishment to an offender, not as a person, but to the illegal act they have undertaken. Conviction due to crimes and being jailed for some times forms an example of a specific deterrence (Friedrichs, 2010). The aim of this application is to reduce repetition of an illegal act by an individual. White collar crimes are sometimes adverse to others, and the organization as large and hence should be acted upon irrespective of whom is involved. However, it is clear that punishment in this form are not effective in sometimes professional undermine them. Further more specific punishment can only be applied when an individual has fears of punishment such imprisonments; contrary particularly when an individual is aware that they can easily go away with a crime they do not hesitate to perpetrate a crime (Horton, 2010).
In conclusion, the capitalistic nature of the economic system entices individual professional to end up perpetrating, white color crime, for their personal benefit. However, a crime is a crime and should be dealt with strongly. There are two key approaches to deal with white collar crimes including shaming perspective and deterrence. Shaming perspective is an act when a given officer who commits a crime is ashamed as an individual and for the act in question. Deterrence involves both the specific and general deterrence, which are based on punishment. Deterrence has been used as both preventive and provoked applications. The three approaches are not universally effective as they only applicable in certain circumstances but fail to apply in others.
Horton, D., (2010). The Social Control of White Collar Crime: "The harder you fall, the higher you bounce"
Friedrichs, D. O. (2010). Trusted criminals: White collar crime in contemporary society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Murphy K., & Harris, N. (2007). “Shaming, Shame and Recidivism: A Test of Reintegrative Shaming Theory in the White-Collar Crime Context”, British Journal of Criminology, Vol 47, pp. 900–917.
Weisburd, D., Chayet, E. F., & Waring, E. J. (1990). “White-Collar and Criminal Careers: Some Preliminary Findings”, Crime and Delinquency, Vol 36 No. 3, pp. 342-355.
Rodder, D. (2009). White-Collar Crime: What sanctions or punishments should be imposed on white-collar criminals? Is imprisonment the best way to deal with serious white-collar criminals or might fines and restitution be a more appropriate remedy?. Munchen: GRIN Verlag Gmbh.
Friedrichs, D. (2010). Trusted criminals, 4e. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.