White collar crimes flourish in an accommodating environment

Jan 16, 2022 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

It was at the joint annual meeting of the American Sociological Society and the American Economic Association in December 1939, that Professor Edwin H. Sutherland first shared with the world his theory and definition of “White collar crime.” We are told that prior to Sutherland “it was sociological convention to correlate crime with poverty or the psychopathic and sociopathic conditions statistically associated with poverty.”
Sutherland defined white collar crime as “crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation.” It is of utmost importance that we carefully ponder on this definition. We need to note two things (A) That Sutherland starts his definition with the status of the offender to determine whether or not he/she was/is a white collar criminal. In other words according to Sutherland, while persons occupying low level jobs can commit economically motivated crimes, they cannot commit “white collar” crimes. (B) When Sutherland speaks of persons of “high social status,” he does not only mean senior government functionaries, but also rich members of the business community. With this understanding of whose criminality we will be discussing here, we can proceed.
Today, most theorists hold that the social environment is the main cause of most crimes, with white collar crime being one such crime. So, while we are disgusted and angry that persons, in whom we place so much trust, are robbing us blind and thus threatening our children’s future, we need to identify and give attention to our social environment. We need to recognise some of our behaviours that allow/encourage leaders to feel comfortable stealing from us.
First, we have the tendency to consider the wealthy (regardless of how their wealth was gained) as deserving of our respect and envy. In an environment such as ours, the rich do not pay a social price for their criminal behaviour. As a result, many among the rich tend to lose their sense of shame. Thus, the rich and persons who are in positions of authority will not hesitate to be involved in acts of white collar crimes. In recent times Guyanese have witnessed behaviours that proves this.
Sometime ago, we were told of a gentleman who was once a senior government minister, who, on learning that others had been accused of corrupt acts, exclaimed “I thought was me deh talking ‘bout, cause I is a man who like dem things” ( or words to that effect). Certainly, anyone expressing such sentiments represents a person who has lost his/her sense of shame. Certainly, only in a society that condones such behaviour would a citizen feel comfortable uttering such a sentiment.
Second, is the tendency for state bodies to cut deals with white collar criminals. While blue collar criminals are jailed, it is the tendency for White collar criminals to face no possibility of serving jail time. The tendency is to allow white collar criminals the opportunity to merely repay stolen money. What is worse, white collar criminals are allowed to repay what was stolen, with little regard to the wealth they would have garnered from investing that which was stolen. In effect the wrong doer becomes richer while suffering no punishment.
Guyanese have also witnessed the above. During the rule of the previous government a businessman was found to owe the nation millions of dollars. From reports, he entered into an agreement with Inland Revenue to repay same (suggesting he had accepted guilt). This gentleman faced no charges, no possibility of jail time. Indeed I understand, with the coming into power of a government he is known to support, the repayment agreement was dropped.
Third, the presence of a citizenry that does not give the impression of being fully aware of the extent to which white collar crimes affects their lives and that of their love ones. Since citizens rarely hear of or see the rich and powerful facing the justice system, citizens rarely conceive such persons’ behaviour as criminal. Hence they have no true appreciation of the extent to which the crimes of the rich and powerful affect their (the poor) lives.
Citizens rarely consider that when they are exposed to a health sector that cannot provide basic medicine, when the Ministry of Education cannot afford to provide schools with adequate washrooms, repair leaking roofs, etc., when community grounds go unkempt or are non-existent, when the elderly are not provided with decent pensions and workers offered inadequate increases in wages and salaries, that all these things can happen as a result of monies being ciphered by white collar criminals.
Fourth, is our acceptance/embrace of foreign values. Guyanese have adopted the west’s materialistic definition of success (same for most poor countries). However, while we embrace western definitions of success, our country does not possess the ability to pay public servants (even at the highest level) salaries that would allow them to satisfy the demands of success western style. Thus, committing white collar crime becomes an attractive and available option for acquiring the means to doing so, for persons in “positions of responsibility.”
It is recognising and understanding the presence of the above social environment that helps us to understand why white collar crimes can flourish in Guyana. Help us understand the poor attendance at prearranged and well-advertised meetings intended to discuss issues concerning our oil industry. Help us understand that the presence of this enabling environment also explains the small turnout of protestors in opposition to the vulgar manner in which the PPP government rushed the passage of the NRF through parliament.

Claudius Prince

---

---