ABSTRACT

Public criminology in relation to white collar crime began with E. H. Sutherland’s coining of the term to draw attention to the criminal nature of corporate activity and the need for greater use of criminal penalties against white collar criminals. Understanding the power of and limitations to criminalization remain central to our expertise. The complexity of this work has made a public criminology of white collar crime more challenging. For some, greater attention should be paid to crime prevention—or regulation—prior to (or instead of) criminalization. Yet, both criminalization and crime prevention demand expertise that extends beyond the traditional criminological canon to ensure that a specific law when enforced can be effective in reducing white collar crime. Without this, acting lawfully is entirely compatible with continuing harm. Indeed, acting lawfully can engender further damage by white collar individuals and corporations. Laws, as recent analyses of white collar crime show, are contradictory. Because of this, greater attention needs to be given to the context within which criminalization is demanded. Knowledge of place is a critical corollary to understanding when either or both criminalization and regulation are an effective strategy or when they deflect attention away from the need for broader structural reforms.