You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Official crime statistics consistently show that the working class — and especially the poorest and most marginalised sections of society — are over-represented among those arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned. This is one of the oldest "facts" of criminology, and the structural theories examined earlier in this topic (strain, subcultural, Marxist and left realist) were largely built to explain it. Yet the apparent class distribution of crime poses a question that is at once empirical and deeply political: does the working class genuinely commit more crime, or is the class pattern substantially a product of selective policing, prosecution and the social construction of crime statistics — a system that polices the "crimes of the streets" intensively while leaving the far costlier "crimes of the suites" largely undetected and unpunished? The study of social class and crime is therefore inseparable from the study of the crimes of the powerful — white-collar and corporate crime — which Edwin Sutherland placed on the criminological agenda and which writers such as Slapper and Tombs, Tombs and Whyte, and Hazel Croall have since developed. This lesson examines the explanations of working-class offending, the nature and invisibility of crimes of the powerful, the concept of the "dark figure" of unrecorded crime, and the mechanisms of selective enforcement and labelling that shape what the statistics actually measure.
Key Definition: White-collar crime was defined by Edwin Sutherland (1949) as "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation." It includes fraud, embezzlement, insider trading and tax evasion. Corporate crime is the broader category of illegal acts committed by, or on behalf of, a business organisation in pursuit of its goals. Together these constitute the crimes of the powerful.
This lesson addresses the AQA A-Level Sociology (7192) Paper 3: Crime and Deviance specification requirement that students understand "the social distribution of crime and deviance by … social class, including recent patterns and trends", together with the requirement to examine crimes of the powerful (white-collar and corporate crime) and the social construction of official crime statistics. It synthesises the structural theories from earlier in the topic (functionalist strain, subcultural, Marxist and left realist) and applies them to the class question, and it engages directly with the specification's concern with the role of the criminal-justice system and other agencies of social control.
The structural theories examined earlier in this topic converge on the working class, each locating the source of offending in class position while differing on the mechanism.
Merton (1938) argued that working-class offending results from the strain between the universal cultural goal of material success and the unequally distributed legitimate means of achieving it. Facing blocked opportunity, some working-class individuals adopt innovation — pursuing success through illegitimate means — which accounts for much utilitarian property crime.
A. Cohen (1955), Cloward and Ohlin (1960) and Miller (1962) explain working-class crime through the formation of deviant subcultures — respectively through status frustration and the inversion of mainstream values, the unequal distribution of illegitimate opportunity, and the focal concerns of a distinct lower-class culture. These theories add the collective and non-utilitarian dimensions that Merton's individualism omits.
Marxists argue that working-class crime is a predictable product of criminogenic capitalism: poverty, exploitation and alienation generate the conditions for offending, while the selective enforcement of the law ensures that working-class crime is disproportionately detected and punished and the crimes of the powerful are not. The law, on this view, protects ruling-class interests, and the statistics reflect the partiality of its enforcement.
Lea and Young (1984) insist that working-class crime is, in significant part, real and is best explained by the interaction of relative deprivation, marginalisation and subculture. The working class experience the sharpest gap between culturally induced aspiration and structurally constrained reality, generating the resentment that can motivate offending — and they are also disproportionately its victims.
The key analytical point is that every major perspective links class inequality to crime; they differ over whether the link runs through real offending, through the construction of the statistics, or through both. The following table draws the comparison together as a revision aid.
| Perspective | Mechanism linking class to crime | Status of the official statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Strain (Merton) | Blocked legitimate opportunity produces innovation among the disadvantaged. | Broadly accepted as reflecting real working-class offending. |
| Subcultural (Cohen; Cloward & Ohlin; Miller) | Collective responses — status frustration, illegitimate opportunity, focal concerns — to a shared class position. | Broadly accepted, though the focus on visible street crime is itself selective. |
| Marxist | Criminogenic capitalism generates offending and selective enforcement protects the powerful. | Treated as an ideological artefact: the law and its enforcement criminalise the poor. |
| Left realist (Lea & Young) | Relative deprivation, marginalisation and subculture produce real offending, of which the poor are also disproportionately victims. | Partly real, partly distorted; victim surveys taken seriously. |
| Labelling (Cicourel) | The negotiation of justice favours the respectable; the poor are labelled and processed as criminal. | A social construct measuring criminal-justice activity, not offending. |
The disagreement is therefore not about whether class matters but about where in the process it operates — at the point of offending, at the point of enforcement, or, most plausibly, at both.
Edwin Sutherland (1949), in White Collar Crime, made the foundational intervention. He argued that criminology had been systematically biased toward the offences of the poor, treating crime as a working-class phenomenon while ignoring the equally or more harmful offences committed by people of high status in the course of their occupations. By coining and theorising "white-collar crime", Sutherland insisted that respectability is no guarantee of law-abidingness and that the class distribution of recorded crime is partly an artefact of what criminology and the criminal-justice system choose to look at. He identified several reasons why such crime is under-detected and under-punished.
| Reason | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Complexity | Fraud, embezzlement and tax evasion are technically complex, concealed within legitimate transactions, and require specialist expertise to detect and prosecute. |
| Diffuse victimisation | Victims are often unaware they have been harmed — overcharging or price-fixing may take a small amount from very many people — so the offence is rarely experienced as a crime and seldom reported. |
| Power and resources | Offenders can deploy expensive legal expertise, influence the regulatory environment, and lobby over the legislation that defines and polices their conduct. |
| Regulatory rather than criminal handling | When detected, such conduct is frequently dealt with by under-resourced regulators through fines and undertakings rather than by the criminal courts, so it does not appear in the crime statistics at all. |
John Slapper and Steve Tombs (1999), in Corporate Crime, and Steve Tombs and David Whyte (2015), in The Corporate Criminal, developed the analysis of crime committed by organisations. Their central claims are that corporate crime is systematic, harmful and under-policed.
Hazel Croall (2001) provided an influential taxonomy of corporate crime that demonstrates its breadth.
| Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| Financial crimes | Fraud, tax evasion, insider trading, price-fixing, illegal accounting. |
| Crimes against consumers | Selling unsafe products, false labelling, food adulteration. |
| Crimes against employees | Health-and-safety violations, illegal working conditions, denial of lawful entitlements. |
| Environmental crimes | Illegal pollution, unlawful disposal of toxic waste, breach of environmental regulation. |
| State-corporate crime | Corruption of officials, illegal lobbying, collusion between corporations and the state. |
Several well-documented cases illustrate the scale of corporate harm and the difficulty of securing accountability.
These cases share a structural feature that conventional street crime lacks: the harm is produced by the normal pursuit of organisational goals under competitive pressure, frequently without any single identifiable individual "intending" the outcome. This diffusion of responsibility across an organisation is one reason corporate crime is so rarely prosecuted as crime — the law's individualistic model of guilt fits the boardroom poorly. It also explains why critics speak of the normalisation of corporate harm: conduct that would be unambiguously criminal if committed by an individual against a neighbour becomes, when committed by a corporation against the public, an "accident", a "regulatory matter" or an unfortunate cost of doing business.
The crimes of the powerful have become harder still to police as economic activity has globalised. Transnational corporations operate across multiple jurisdictions, enabling them to relocate the most hazardous or lightly regulated operations to states with weaker enforcement and lower penalties — a process critics describe as the pursuit of regulatory havens. Profits can be shifted across borders to minimise tax liability, and complex transnational supply chains make responsibility difficult to trace and prosecution difficult to mount. The Bhopal disaster, in which a Western-owned corporation's plant in a lower-income country produced catastrophic harm, is frequently cited as emblematic of the way the global division of labour displaces corporate risk onto the populations least able to resist it. This connects social class and crime directly to the Paper 3 globalisation content: the class distribution of crime is increasingly a global phenomenon, in which the harms of the powerful are externalised across the world's poorest populations while the enforcement capacity of any single nation-state is correspondingly diminished. A purely national analysis of class and crime is therefore incomplete; the most damaging crimes of the powerful are now transnational in scale and organisation.
Beyond the boardroom, middle-class and occupational crime is widespread but under-researched and under-prosecuted. Tax evasion (illegal, as distinct from lawful avoidance) is estimated by HMRC to form part of a substantial annual "tax gap"; insurance fraud imposes significant costs that are ultimately passed to honest policyholders; expenses fraud was exposed across the political class in the 2009 UK parliamentary expenses scandal; and the routine breach of copyright through illegal downloading is practised across the middle classes yet rarely prosecuted. The cumulative significance of these examples is not that the middle classes are uniquely criminal, but that crime is plainly not a uniquely working-class phenomenon — and that the official statistics, by concentrating on the visible offences of the poor, systematically understate the offending of the comfortable.
If crime occurs across the class structure, why do the statistics depict it as overwhelmingly working-class? Three interlocking mechanisms account for the distortion.
Police resources — stop and search, surveillance, proactive patrol — are concentrated in working-class and disadvantaged areas, where offences are committed in public space and are therefore visible. Crimes of the powerful, by contrast, occur behind the closed doors of offices and boardrooms, are concealed within legitimate activity, and are far harder to detect. The result is a large "dark figure" of unrecorded crime, disproportionately composed of the offences of the powerful, which never enters the statistics at all. Robert Reiner (2010) argues that police culture carries a working image of the "typical criminal" — young, male, working-class — that channels suspicion and enforcement toward the disadvantaged and away from the respectable.
Key Definition: The dark figure of crime is the volume of crime that is committed but never recorded in official statistics — because it is not detected, not reported, or not recorded. The dark figure is thought to be especially large for corporate, occupational and "victimless" crime, which is why the statistics under-represent the crimes of the powerful.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.