Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Coleman, J. W. (1992). Crime and money: Motivation and opportunity in a monetarized economy. American Behavioral Scientist, 21, 1, 7-42.

Summary: All crime causation theories agree that both the opportunity and motivation must exist for a crime to occur. The desire for money is clearly the basic motivation for white-collar crime. In addition, anthropological research reveals that money has a major role in the ritual systems of many cultures, and psychologists have found that money also has great emotional significance. Furthermore, a heavily monetarized economy has many more criminal opportunities than other societies, and the use of money reduces the risk of punishment. The use of checks, credit cards, and electronic funds transfers is making the circulation of money far less anonymous than in the past. Some have proposed eliminating cash to make the detection of crimes easier. However, such measures might make modern industrial nations into totalitarian countries. Therefore, criminal laws should be changed to make the unauthorized transmission of confidential personal information a serious offense. Although an anonymous and interchangeable currency can facilitate criminal behavior, it is essential to individual freedom and privacy.

Questions to Consider:

1. How does the focus on money in our culture influence white collar (and other) criminal offending?
    
2. How does the use of money in an economy decrease the risk of punishment?
    
3. What alternatives to using money could be adopted? Would these reduce white collar crime?
    

Benson, M. L. & Moore, E. (1992). Are white-collar and common offenders the same?: An empirical and theoretical critique of a recently proposed general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29(3), 251-272.

Summary: This article addresses two propositions on white-collar crime derived from a general theory of crime recently proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi. This theory predicts that white-collar offenders are (a) as criminally versatile and (b) as prone to deviance as common offenders. To assess the validity of these propositions, the authors investigate the criminal records of white-collar and common offenders and their respective levels of participation in deviant activities. As the general theory predicts, some white-collar offenders are involved in crime and deviance to much the same degree as typical street criminals. A large majority differ significantly from street criminals in these regards, contradicting the theory and limiting its generality. The authors argue that the theory's rejection of motives as important causal forces is misguided and that a more complex causal structure is needed to account for patterns of white-collar offending.

Questions to Consider:

1. What is the underlying proposition of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime?
    
2. What assumptions about white-collar and street offenders are derived from the general theory of crime?
    
3. Overall, was support found for Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime?