Deviant Behavior

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]
On: 1 February 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918149645]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Deviant Behavior
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713394036
White-collar Prisoners' Perceptions of Audience Reaction

Mandeep K. Dhami a
a
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, UK
To cite this Article Dhami, Mandeep K.(2007) 'White-collar Prisoners' Perceptions of Audience Reaction', Deviant
Behavior, 28: 1, 57 — 77
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01639620600987475
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639620600987475
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Deviant Behavior, 28: 57 77, 2007
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0163-9625 print/1521-0456 online
DOI: 10.1080/01639620600987475
white-collar prisoners’
perceptions of audience
reaction
Mandeep K. Dhami
Downloaded By: [University of Cambridge] At: 17:58 1 February 2010
University of Cambridge, Cambridge,

England, UK
There appears to be a societal-level change in the
reaction to white-collar crime. The present study
explored how white-collar prisoners perceive the
reactions of the judiciary, media, significant others,
prison staff, and other inmates toward them, and
how these offenders perceived their own offending
behavior. Interviews with 14 offenders revealed
that they perceived the reaction of the judiciary
and media as negative (e.g., punitive), but the
reaction of significant others, prison staff, and other
inmates as positive (e.g., supportive). Offenders
also neutralized their own criminal behavior.
Perceptions of audience reaction were shaped by
offenders’ expectations of how others would react
and their own conceptions of crime.
White-collar crime was originally defined by Sutherland

(1949) as ‘‘a crime committed by a person of respectability
and high social status in the course of his occupation’’
(Sutherland 1983: 7). This definition combines characteris-
tics of the offender and the offense. Although it is clear that
white-collar crimes may be committed by people from a
broad spectrum of society (Croall 1989), many theorists still
Received 10 October 2005; accepted 12 July 2006.

Address correspondence to Mandeep K. Dhami, Institute of Criminology, Faculty of
Law, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DT, England, UK.
E-mail: mkd25@cam.ac.uk
57
58 M. K. Dhami
find the focus on offenders of high social status, income, or

power within the organization to be useful (Weisburd et al.
1991). Indeed, white-collar offenders tend to differ from con-
ventional offenders in many respects (Weisburd et al. 2001).
Sutherland (1940, 1945) also pointed out that society does
not view white-collar crime as ‘‘real’’ crime. Indeed, crimes
such as anti-trust violations, bankruptcy fraud, tax evasion,
insider trading, and embezzlement are often defined and
explained in ways that are incompatible with our notion of
conventional crime, and consequently, societal reaction to
white-collar crime has tended to be unlike the punitive reac-
tion to conventional crime (for reviews see Croall 2001;
Nelken 2002; Shover 1998).

Sutherland (1949) asserted that social reaction to white-
collar crime was characterized by acceptance and support
at best, and by ambivalence at worst. He argued that this
enables white-collar offenders to escape stigmatization and
maintain a non-criminal self-concept. Indeed, white-collar
crimes have tended to fall under the jurisdiction of private
laws such as civil law and regulatory law, and so are dealt
with by special regulatory agencies or are self-regulated.
Regulation has been primarily through administrative means,
and has been reactive. Prosecution has tended to be
infrequent as trials are characteristically long, expensive,
and complex, and the efficacy of the criminal law is limited
by the difficulties inherent in defining behaviors as illegal,
the need to keep up-to-date with technological advances,
and the existence of ‘‘loopholes.’’ Moreover, offenders have
sometimes controlled information that indicates blame-
worthiness, intent, or responsibility. Evidence suggests that
the police may be reluctant to pursue white-collar offenders
(Mitchell et al. 1998), and that judges respond with leniency
toward such offenders, who are rarely imprisoned, and if
so, only for short terms (Levi 1989; Tillman and Pontell
1988). A common legal sanction against white-collar crimes
has been a financial penalty.
Social reaction to crime is influenced by the prevailing
norms (Quinney 1970). Thus, there are cultural, spatial,
and temporal variations in the social response to crime,
and tolerance for particular crimes may change. Since the
1970s, there appears to have been a societal-level change
in perceptions of, and reactions to, white-collar crime,
White-Collar Prisoners 59
prompted by the Watergate scandal (Katz 1980; Simpson

2002; but see Friedrichs [1996] who argues that this may
be more rhetoric than reality). This movement is reflected
by both ‘‘formal’’ and ‘‘informal’’ shifts (Pontell et al. 1994).
The formal response to white-collar crime appears to be
changing. First, governments have constructed special teams
and programs to detect, investigate, and record white-collar
crime. For instance, the 1980s saw the establishment of the
Financial Crimes Section of the FBI in the U.S., and the Ser-
ious Fraud Office in the U.K. There are also more regulatory
agencies such as the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets,
the Environmental Agency, Health and Safety Commission,
Trading Standards, and Consumer Protection in the U.K.

and their equivalents in other Western countries. Second,
legislation has been constructed to deal with white-collar
crimes. This includes anti-trust laws, securities fraud laws,
environmental protection laws, occupational health and
safety laws, and consumer product safety laws. Furthermore,
as Hopkins (1981) argues, the powers of investigative agen-
cies are greater in cases of white-collar crime and the burden
of proof is lower than for conventional crimes. Third, the
likelihood of prosecuting white-collar crime has increased
(Benson et al. 1990). Fourth, evidence suggests that white-
collar offenders are more likely to face punitive sanctions
than they were in the past (Breyer 1988; Hagan and Palloni
1986; Higgins 1999), and that these sentences are longer
(Reason 2000). For instance, Hagan et al. (1980) found that
white-collar offenders received harsher sentences than a
comparable group of conventional offenders. Similarly,
Weisburd et al. (1991) reported that higher status offenders
were more likely to receive prison sentences.
In addition, there appears to be a shift in the informal
response to white-collar crime (Schrager and Short 1980).
This is reflected in a general public intolerance for white-col-
lar crime (Cullen et al. 1982, 1983; Hickman 1986), which is
a departure from the indifference of the 1970s (Rossi et al.
1974). The public perceives white-collar crimes as having
led to greater economic and moral harm than conventional
street crimes. A survey conducted by the National White
Collar Crime Center Training and Research Institute (2000)
indicates that a greater proportion of the public perceives
white-collar crimes such as fraud and embezzlement to be
60 M. K. Dhami
more serious than conventional crimes such as ‘‘street’’ theft.

Moreover, the majority of the public believes that a ‘‘fraud-
ster’’ deserves either equal or greater punishment than a
‘‘robber.’’ Police chiefs also view white-collar crime as more
serious than conventional crime (Pontell et al. 1985).
According to labeling theorists one of the consequences of
being labeled a criminal (i.e., conviction) or experiencing
negative audience reaction and exclusion from participation
in conventional social roles (i.e., prison sentence), is the
increased likelihood that the individual will develop a crimi-
nal self-image (Becker 1963; Lemert 1951; Schur 1971). The
development of a criminal self-image constitutes one step in
the process of developing a criminal career. Thus, according

to this perspective, criminal behavior is constructed through
the interaction between the offender and those who react
toward him or her (Becker 1963; Erikson 1962; Kitsuse
1962). The audience may include agents of formal control
such as the police and judiciary, the offender’s significant
others, society in general (Schur 1971), and the offender
him or herself (Becker 1963). The nature of the reaction
may range from permissiveness through indifference to con-
demnation (Lemert 1951). However, the individual is not
passive to the effects of labeling or negative audience reac-
tion, and may in fact negotiate the label that is applied
through various techniques including ‘‘fighting back’’
(Rogers and Buffalo 1974) and ‘‘neutralization’’ (Sykes and
Matza 1957).
The aim of the present study is to explore how white-collar
offenders who have been convicted and sentenced to impris-
onment perceive the reactions of others toward them and
how these offenders perceive their own behavior. In parti-
cular, do these individuals tend to perceive the reaction of
agents of formal control such as the judiciary and agents of
informal control such as significant others as negative or con-
demning, and do they view their own behavior as criminal?
Furthermore, what are the possible mechanisms that may
shape white-collar offenders’ perceptions of audience reac-
tion? The present study focused on capturing white-collar
offenders’ perceptions of audience reaction rather than on
measuring actual audience reaction because the reaction of
others may be perceived differently by the labeled individual
than that intended by the reactors (Kitsuse 1962).
Although there is a great deal of theoretical literature on

white-collar crime, there is a relative dearth of empirical
research on white-collar crime that involves primary data
collection from white-collar offenders. The present study
represents a first step in understanding how white-collar pris-
oners perceive audience reaction to them and their crimes. A
qualitative approach involving a small-scale, semi-structured
individual interview method was adopted. It is envisaged
that rather than providing conclusive answers to the afore-
stated questions, the data gleaned from this approach will
generate several avenues of future research involving lar-
ger-scale surveys. Exploration of the issues raised herein
may eventually contribute to our theoretical understanding

of white-collar crime in terms of labeling white-collar offen-
ders as criminal. The findings may also have implications for
how we respond to white-collar offenders.
THE PRESENT STUDY

The specific aims of the present study were to: (1) Explore
how white-collar prisoners perceive the reaction of others
such as the judiciary, media, significant others, prison staff,
and prison inmates toward them. (2) Explore how white-
collar prisoners perceive their own criminal behavior. And,
(3) highlight the mechanisms that may shape these perceptions.
For the present purposes, white-collar crime is defined as
an economic crime committed through the use of fraud
and=or deception by a person occupying a senior position
in an organization. Here, ‘‘senior’’ was defined as someone
holding a top-level management position in the organization
(including directors and managers of sections of the organi-
zation). This definition incorporates the main elements of
Sutherland’s (1949) original conception of white-collar
crime and a recent focus on white-collar offenders as high
in socioeconomic status, income, or power within the
organization, and abusing trust (Coleman 1987; Croall
2001; Shapiro 1990; Wheeler and Rothman 1982). Further-
more, this definition refers to the types of offenders against
which the criminal justice system, the public, and media
appear to be reacting against in more recent years. Although
this narrow definition reduces the size of the sample of
white-collar offenders that will be studied, precision is useful
62 M. K. Dhami
for replication and for comparison of research findings across

studies.
In the present study, the categories of audience who may
react to white-collar crime included those identified by
Schur (1971) and Becker (1963): judiciary, media, significant
others, prison staff, prison inmates, and self. The judiciary
and prison staff represent agents of formal control. Although
the police and prosecution were also relevant audiences,
they were excluded in an effort to control the time required
for data collection, and it was anticipated that their reactions
would be highly related to those of the judiciary. Agents of
informal control include the media, significant others, and
prison inmates. Specifically, the judiciary was that involved

in the current conviction; the media referred to national
and local radio, press and television; significant others
referred to spouse=partner, children, parents, other relatives,
and friends (including business associates); prison staff
referred to guards in the current prison; and prison inmates
referred to those in the current prison. These categories were
defined by the researcher. Significant others, prison staff, and
other prison inmates all have an opportunity to interact
directly with the offender and react to his or her behavior,
thus making this category more concrete and identifiable.
By contrast, the judiciary and the media’s reaction is often
based on indirect interaction with the offender, and conse-
quently this category is relatively abstract and anonymous.
Finally, Becker (1963) pointed out that the individual is also
audience to his or her own behavior.
METHOD
Sampling Procedure
As Payne (2003) points out, it is difficult to determine exactly
how many white-collar offenders are in prison. For the pur-
poses of the present study, participants were selected using
a two-stage purposive sampling procedure. First, one prison
in England was selected because it accommodated a large
group of white-collar offenders according to Prison Service
Headquarters. The prison governor was contacted by a letter
that introduced the researcher, the study, and requested
access to the prison. Second, inmates serving sentences for
crimes of fraud or deception and who fit the aforementioned

definition of a white-collar crime were selected. An initial
sample of 105 inmates sentenced for fraud or deception
according to the prison database was reduced to 26 inmates
after brief individual interviews with the inmates, which
involved asking them about the circumstances of their
offense and their rank within the organization. The group
of 26 inmates all occupied a senior position in an organiza-
tion whereas the remainder were sentenced for social secur-
ity fraud or did not commit fraud or deception in the context
of their employment. It was ascertained that 7 of the
26 inmates would be released before the data collection
phase, and so they were asked to participate in the pilot

phase. In total, 14 (out of 19) adult male prisoners in a mini-
mum security prison volunteered to participate in the main
data collection phase. This represents a 74% response rate.
Prisoners were told that there would be no negative conse-
quences of non-participation. Reasons for non-participation
included concern that it may somehow affect a forthcoming
appeal, lack of interest in the study, and having prison work
commitments.
Participants
All participants could be described as Caucasian. Seven
participants were aged from 30 to 40 years, 6 were 41 to
50 years old, and 1 participant was aged over 50 years. All
participants were employed before being charged for the
current offense, and five were employed as the head of a
company, three participants held a senior management pos-
ition, and six held a senior professional position. (Details of
the organizations that these individuals worked in were not
gathered to maintain anonymity and confidentiality.) Half
of the sample had completed a higher education degree.
Nine of the participants had been convicted and sen-
tenced for fraud, and five had been convicted and sentenced
for deception. Ten participants had received a one to three
year sentence and four participants were serving sentences
over three years. At the time of the interview, half of the sam-
ple had served less than 6 months, 6 participants had served
from 6 to 12 months, and 1 participant had served over
12 months. All of the participants had previously been to a
higher security prison for an average of 3.5 months before
64 M. K. Dhami
coming to the minimum security prison (most of this time

was spent on remand). Half of the sample was appealing
against their sentence at the time of interview, and two part-
icipants had made unsuccessful appeals against sentence.
Finally, four participants had a previous criminal conviction
(for a similar offense for three participants), and one partici-
pant had previously received a custodial sentence.
Therefore, demographically, the sample of participants in
the present study differ from the stereotype of a conventional
offender by virtue of their offenses, their older age, being
employed prior to conviction, being educated, having
few or no previous convictions, and serving their sentence
in a minimum security prison (Home Office 2002).

Interview Schedule
Data was collected using semi-structured individual inter-
views. The interview schedule contained key questions
about participants’ perceptions of the reaction of the
judiciary, the media, significant others, prison staff, and
prison inmates, and perceptions of their own behavior. In
each section (e.g., judiciary section), open-ended questions
established the reaction a participant experienced, followed
by whether he expected that reaction, and whether he per-
ceived it to be more positive or negative than he had
expected. The terms ‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘negative’’ were used
because they were deemed less leading than other terms
such as ‘‘permissive’’ and ‘‘condemning.’’ A neutral term
was excluded in an effort to encourage offenders to respond
in more detail and to make points more evident as is neces-
sary in exploratory research. Probes requiring participants to
provide reasons for their responses were also included. For
example, ‘‘How do you think prison staff have reacted to
you?’’ ‘‘Have their reactions been more positive or negative
than you’d expected?’’ ‘‘What are your reasons?’’
The interview schedule also included questions concern-
ing participants’ demographic characteristics. In addition,
the schedule contained a standardized introduction to the
study that assured confidentiality and anonymity, informed
participants of the duration of the interview, and requested
permission to take notes. The interview schedule was piloted
on seven white-collar prisoners. (A copy of the interview
schedule is available from the author upon request.)
Procedure
Participants were interviewed during prison work or activity
hours in a weekday. The interview room was in a temporary
Annex building separate from the main prison buildings.
Responses were recorded by taking written notes, which
were largely verbatim, because the researcher asked parti-
cipants to speak slowly and occasionally to repeat responses.
(A tape-recorder was not allowed in the prison for security
purposes, and would have compromised anonymity.) Inter-
views lasted on average 1 hour, 30 minutes. At the end of
the interview, participants were asked if they had any further
comments concerning the issues they had discussed or the

study.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Analysis of the interview data focused on categories and
commonalties of responses (the frequency of responses is
presented in parentheses). The main findings are described
and discussed in the following section in order of the aims
of the study listed earlier, followed by their implications
and limitations.
White-collar Offenders’ Perceptions of Others’ Reactions

to their Behavior
The formal response to the white-collar crimes committed
by offenders in the present study was punitive. A criminal
trial involves confrontation, a criminal conviction constitutes
an official judgment and label of criminality, and a sentence
to imprisonment excludes the individual from participation
in conventional social roles for a period of time (Erikson
1962). A majority of participants in the sample (11) per-
ceived the reaction of the judiciary as negative and punitive.
This was because participants had not expected the convic-
tion, prison sentence, or the length of sentence. These expec-
tations in turn appeared to be based on participants’
conceptions of white-collar crime as not being ‘‘real’’ crime.
Typical responses were:
The barrister didn’t think I’d be sent to prison. The nature of
the offence is complex and white-collar crime isn’t easily
66 M. K. Dhami
defined. I didn’t commit a crime in the normal sense of the

word. (Participant 13)
I didn’t expect to be convicted because the trial was so
complex, so I expected an acquittal. The investigations took
over four years . . . . The judge was negative and extremely
harsh considering that only a small amount of money was
involved. (Participant 14)
After reading about other similar cases in the media
I thought I’d receive a short sentence. I was shocked with
the judge’s negative attitude . . . . Sending a white-collar
criminal to prison is a waste of time and money . . . . White-
collar criminals are not a danger to other human beings.
(Participant 4)
Nine of the eleven participants who were aware of media

attention to their case perceived the reaction of the media as
negative and biased. Indeed, participants viewed the media
coverage as fictional. They had, however, expected media
attention, often because the organization was well known
or because a substantial sum of money was involved. Typical
responses were:
[I expected media attention] because of the large amount of

money involved . . . . My case was reported mainly in the
local papers when I first got caught, before the trial. The
coverage was negative because the media did not report
the facts but just the ‘‘news.’’ (Participant 2)
The local and national press were negative . . . they stereo-
typed me as a Walter Mitty character. It was slanderous. (Par-
ticipant 3)
The local press were negative. The case was badly
reported, sensational and biased against me, despite the fact
that the reporters weren’t in the court to collect information
for most of the hearing. (Participant 10)
Participants said that their children were the most signifi-
cant others in their life, closely followed by their spouse=
partner, and their parents. Friends, siblings, and an ex-
employer were also regarded as significant others by some
of the sample. Only one participant said that none of his
significant others knew that he had been convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment.
All but one of the participants in the sample perceived the

reaction of some or all of his significant others as positive
and supportive. These participants believed that their signifi-
cant others did not regard them as criminals, but concurred
that they had been harshly treated by the criminal justice
system. Typical responses were:
My wife’s bitter towards the system but she’s supportive
towards me . . . . She feels that I’ve been hard done by . . . .
The twins are supportive. They don’t agree that I should be
in prison because I didn’t hurt anyone or take anything. (Par-
ticipant 3)
My son has coped well. He’s 17 and he’s very angry about
what he perceives to be very unfair . . . . My daughter was
worried for ‘‘daddy.’’ (Participant 13)
In fact, most of the participants (9) did not expect the reac-
tion of their significant others to change. Typical reasons for
this were because he had not committed a conventional
crime and because significant others had been supportive
in the past. Seven of the eleven participants who said that
the reaction of significant others had changed since being
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment perceived the
change as positive in that it strengthened relations.
Most of the participants (9) claimed to have daily contact
with prison staff, largely in work situations. All of the sample
perceived the reaction of staff in the current prison as posi-
tive and respectful. They believed that staff treated them as
individuals rather than ‘‘criminals.’’ This was contrasted with
their perceptions of staff reactions in the higher security pris-
ons in which participants were located pre-sentence. Typical
responses were:
The staff have been fine, generally very fair, not judgmental.
They take you as the person you are, not the crime you’ve
committed. They’re very professional . . . . I’m treated with
respect here . . . . [In the higher security prison] every officer’s
interpretation of an inmate is that they’re arse-holes—scum of
the earth.. . . They lacked respect and insisted that everyone
call them ‘‘boss.’’ (Participant 3)
Staff are fine. Everyone is treated as human, rather than a
convict. . . . [In the higher security prison] the officers treated
everyone like a criminal from day one. (Participant 8)
68 M. K. Dhami
Furthermore, all but one of the participants in the sample

expected staff to treat them the same as other inmates.
Typical reasons for this were because staff do not necessarily
know what crimes individual inmates have committed, and
all inmates in the current prison were deemed to be at the
same level of risk. However, some of the participants (4)
believed that they had been treated differently and more
positively by prison staff than other inmates convicted of
conventional crimes, largely because they believed staff
knew that they had not committed a violent crime and that
they had money (on the outside).
All of the sample claimed to have daily contact with other
inmates in both work and social situations. All participants

perceived the reaction of other inmates in the current prison
as positive, friendly, and accepting. This was contrasted with
their perceptions of inmate reactions in the higher security
prisons in which participants were located pre-sentence.
Furthermore, the positive reaction appeared partly to be by
virtue of the situation that the white-collar offender was in.
The other inmates are sympathetic. There’s a lot more support
between inmates in this prison . . . I was expecting a lot of
antagonism. (Participant 7)
The other inmates have been positive because I expected
there to be an inmate hierarchy like in closed prisons.
(Participant 5)
The other inmates see me as someone they can talk to if
they have a problem because I work in the Chaplaincy and
in my career I’ve worked with the general public . . . I
expected to be ridiculed because I’ve been to school. And I
expected to be bullied, but I haven’t been. (Participant 10)
I get on really well with everyone, from the lifers to the
rogues. Everyone’s been fine generally. A lot depends on
where you live. On my landing there’s a fair amount of mix-
ing. I’m very accepted. (Participant 11)
Most of the participants (9) said that they did not expect
other inmates to treat them differently from those convicted
of conventional crimes because they thought all people are
considered equal in prison. Nevertheless, a majority of the
participants (12) believed that they had been treated
differently, namely, more positively by other inmates. Typical
reasons for this were that inmates treated them with more
respect, inmates did not ‘‘bother’’ or bully them, and they
offered them ‘‘stuff.’’ Participants appeared to believe that
this differential reaction from other inmates was partly due
to white-collar offenders’ better financial status, and fasci-
nation with their type of crime.
As Lemert (1951) noted, audience reaction may be charac-
terized as negative in terms of rejection, withdrawal, and
condemnation or as positive in terms of acceptance and sup-
port. Indifference and tolerance represent a middle position.
The present study focused on capturing white-collar offen-
ders’ perceptions of audience reaction, rather than measur-
ing actual audience reaction. Participants’ perceptions of

audience reactions as positive can be characterized as sup-
portive, respectful, friendly, and accepting. By contrast, their
perceptions of audience reactions as negative referred to
being punitive and biased.
From one perspective, the categories of audience repre-
sented earlier can be divided into agents of formal control
(i.e., judiciary and prison staff) and agents of informal control
(i.e., media, significant others, prison inmates, and self). Alter-
natively, these categories of audience can be divided into
those who have a greater opportunity to interact directly with
the individual offender (i.e., significant others, prison inmates,
prison staff, and self) and those who do not (i.e., judiciary and
media). From the first perspective, it was found that white-col-
lar offenders in the present study had a mixed perception of the
reactions of both agents of formal control and informal control.
White-collar offenders tended to perceive the reaction of the
judiciary as negative, but the reaction of prison staff as positive.
They tended to perceive the reaction of significant others and
prison inmates as positive, and their own behavior as non-
criminal, but the reaction of media as negative. However, from
the second perspective it was found that white-collar offenders
perceived the reaction of groups with whom they had an
opportunity to have direct, personal interaction as positive
and the reaction of groups with whom they did not have such
an opportunity as negative.
An implication of these findings is that offenders’ positive
perceptions of the reaction of audiences with whom they
have had an opportunity for direct interaction suggests
that audience reaction maybe moderated by the individual
70 M. K. Dhami
offender’s ability to portray himself as more than an

‘‘offender’’ and so the audience may react not only to his
behavior but also to his personal attributes. Research
on the relative impact of direct and indirect interaction
with white-collar offenders on audience reaction may be
warranted.
White-collar Offenders’ Reactions to Their Own Behavior
Becker (1963) stated that an individual may perceive his or
her own behavior as either criminal or non-criminal. All
but one of the participants in the sample perceived their
own offending behavior as non-criminal because they had
not harmed anyone, or because their offense differed from

conventional crimes, and was in fact legal in other countries.
There’s no victim in white-collar crime, only the organiza-
tion. White-collar crime isn’t a danger to society. . . . There
was no visual damage, no physical damage, no-one was hurt.
It was mostly a financial matter. (Participant 1)
What I was accused of doing wasn’t a crime until the 1985
Company’s Act and it’s still not a crime in other countries.
The public’s harsher on white-collar crime since Maxwell.
(Participant 11)
With a business fraud there’s a very fine line between right
and wrong. The judge directed the jury to perceive it as a
crime. I don’t agree that I was breaking the law, so I may
do it again. (Participant 3)
Therefore, white-collar offenders’ reactions to their own
behavior may be characterized as positive. Indeed, parti-
cipants, like other offenders, displayed a specific mode of
adaptation to the criminal label. The specific ‘‘fighting back’’
phenomena referred to as ‘‘redefinition’’ by Rogers and Buf-
falo (1974) displayed by participants was that they disagreed
with the label thus canceling it out. They also neutralized
their behavior using techniques similar to those described by
Sykes and Matza (1957). For example, participants denied
responsibility by claiming they were influenced by market
forces beyond their control. Participants denied injury by
arguing that no-one was hurt, or there was little harm done.
Participants denied the existence of a victim by arguing that
the victim was absent or unknown, or transforming the
victim (e.g., bank) into the ‘‘wrong-doer’’ while seeing them-

selves as the ‘‘avenger.’’ In expressing condemnation for the
condemners, participants shifted the focus of attention from
themselves to the motives and behavior of those who disap-
proved of their behavior. Finally, participants’ appeal to
higher loyalties suggested they had to forfeit the needs of
wider society to fulfill the needs of a smaller group of busi-
nessmen to which they belonged. The present findings are
consistent with previous evidence suggesting that white-
collar offenders often use neutralization techniques to legit-
imize their behavior (Benson 1985; Cressey 1953; Dabney
1995; Gauthier 2001; Hollinger 1991; McBarnet 1991;
Willott et al. 2001).

It is interesting to consider why white-collar offenders
exhibit self-serving attitudes toward their criminal behavior
given the growing societal-level intolerance toward white-
collar crime. One possible explanation may be that these
self-serving attitudes help them to maintain a positive self-
concept (i.e., non-criminal=deviant self-image, high self-
esteem, and positive ideal self).
One implication of these findings is that the mechanism
explaining why convicted and imprisoned white-collar offen-
ders may re-offend upon release is different to that offered by
some theorists (Becker 1963; Lemert 1951; Schur 1971) who
argue that being labeled a criminal and=or experiencing
exclusion from participation in conventional social roles
increases the likelihood of developing a criminal self-image
and engaging in criminal behavior. According to the present
study, potential re-offending may be explained by the offen-
der’s denial of the criminality of his behavior and=or the
counterbalance provided by informal agents such as signifi-
cant others to the criminal label attached by formal agents
of control such as the judiciary. The extent to which this
explains evidence that white-collar offenders are often repeat
offenders (Weisburd et al. 1990) remains to be examined.
Factors Shaping Perceptions of Audience Reaction
White-collar offenders’ perceptions of audience reaction
were shaped by their expectations of how others would
react, and by their conceptions of crime. Expectations were
informed by participants’ knowledge of how white-collar
offenders are often dealt with by the criminal justice system;
72 M. K. Dhami
how crimes are reported in the media; by the nature of

participants’ relations with significant others prior to convic-
tion; and by their experience of being in a higher security
prison pre-sentence. Specifically, participants did not expect
the judiciary, media, significant others, prison staff, and other
prison inmates to treat them like ‘‘criminals’’ or change their
reactions toward them in accordance with the criminal label.
Thus, the judiciary’s decision to convict and sentence them
to prison was perceived as punitive and the media coverage
that pointed to the participants’ criminality was also per-
ceived as biased. Participants were aware that in comparison
to conventional crime, white-collar crime constitutes a small
proportion of criminal convictions, that prison sentences are

relatively rare for white-collar offenders, and that crimes
reported in the media tend to be sensationalized. By contrast,
the support provided by significant others and the favorable
experiences of prison staff and other inmates in the minimum
security prison was perceived as positive by participants.
This may partly be explained by the fact that participants
tended to have stable personal relationships prior to convic-
tion, and they were able to successfully justify and neutralize
their offending behavior to significant others. Finally, white-
collar offenders were sent to high security prisons pre-sentence
where they had negative experiences of staff and inmates, and
in the current minimum security prison they found themselves
at the top of a criminal hierarchy. Thus, white-collar offenders’
perceptions of audience reaction were shaped by their expec-
tations, which in turn were derived from their past experiences
and knowledge.
White-collar offenders’ perceptions of audience reaction
were also shaped by their own conceptions of crime. Parti-
cipants did not view white-collar crimes as criminal. Rather,
participants typically distinguished white-collar crime from
conventional crimes. They viewed white-collar crimes as
non-criminal partly because there were no visible victims
or violence, and because some white-collar crimes were
legal in the past or currently so in other jurisdictions. They
believed that it was both acceptable and common to over-
come financial difficulties to succeed or to make a profit
by resorting to ‘‘illegal’’ means, especially if the victim is
an organization rather than an identifiable individual. Thus,
white-collar offenders’ perceptions of audience reaction
were shaped by their conceptions of crime, which in turn

were derived from a distinction between white-collar and
conventional crimes.
In sum, like other groups of offenders, white-collar offenders
were not passive recipients of the criminal label. They did not
perceive themselves as criminal. White-collar offenders inter-
preted audience reaction by drawing on their past experiences
and knowledge, and their conceptions of crime. This can have
implications for our theoretical understanding of the effects of
labeling. Offenders’ perceptions of audience reaction may or
may not coincide with the audiences’ intended reaction. To
the extent that there is a discrepancy between these two per-
spectives, there may be misunderstanding and misprediction

in how offenders ought to be affected by the criminal label.
Future research could examine the degree of correspondence
between intended reactions to white-collar crime and white-
collar offenders’ perceptions of these reactions.
Implications, Limitations and Future Directions
Some of the implications of the present findings have already
been highlighted. In addition, it may be important for offen-
ders while in prison to maintain contact with others such as
significant others who can negate the criminal label. Further-
more, as Payne (2003, chapter 3) points out, the use of neu-
tralization techniques have several implications for how
white-collar offenders should be treated in prison. As for
conventional offenders, for instance, programs need to aid
offenders in taking responsibility, realizing the consequences
of their behavior, and showing remorse. The fact that societal
reaction is influenced by the seriousness of the crime and the
blameworthiness of the offender necessitates efforts to
encourage white-collar offenders to acknowledge the harm
caused and their role in the crime.
As Shover (1998) observes, a large proportion of the
research on white-collar crime has been based on case stu-
dies that may not be representative of the general phenom-
enon. Although the present study used an interview survey,
the small sample size precludes reliable generalizations to
the population of imprisoned white-collar offenders. How-
ever, the small sample reflects the definition of white-collar
crime employed and the relatively small number of such
offenders who were imprisoned in the institution. Others
74 M. K. Dhami
have used similarly small samples of white-collar offenders

(Benson and Cullen 1988). The extent to which the present
findings can be generalized to white-collar offenders in other
jurisdictions will depend on the audience reaction and past
experiences and knowledge of offenders and their concep-
tions of crime. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, the U.S. and
U.K. have developed a similarly condemning response to
white-collar crime in recent years, and there is perhaps little
reason to believe that top-level managers in both countries
will have vastly different experiences and knowledge, and
conceptions of crime. Nevertheless, future research needs
to examine the generality of the present findings across juris-
dictions, using a broader definition of criminal acts (e.g.,

embezzlement, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, tax evasion,
bribery, extortion) and individuals (e.g., those in manage-
ment and non-management positions), and involving impri-
soned white-collar offenders from several types of prisons
(e.g., different levels of security).
Future research could also widen the scope of the present
research. For instance, how do white-collar offenders perceive
the reaction of others in their workplace? How do white-collar
offenders who have been released from prison perceive the
reaction of groups such as potential employers and the local
community? How do white-collar offenders who were con-
victed but received a non-custodial sentence, or those who
were caught but not convicted perceive societal reaction?
How do white-collar offenders’ perceptions of audience reac-
tion impact their self-concept as ‘‘criminal’’ or ‘‘non-criminal,’’
and their probability of re-offending? Finally, what are the con-
sequences of the neutralization techniques used by white-col-
lar offenders for audience reaction, and for their self-concept?
Empirical research that addresses these issues may extend our
theoretical understanding of the phenomenon of white-collar
crime, and contribute to policy development regarding the
most appropriate way of responding to such crimes.
REFERENCES
Becker, H. S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.
London, England: Free Press of Glencoe Collier-Macmillan.
Benson, M. L. 1985. ‘‘Denying the Guilty Mind: Accounting for Involve-
ment in a White-Collar Crime.’’ Criminology 23:583 607.
Benson, M. L. and F. T. Cullen. 1988. ‘‘The Special Sensitivity of White-

Collar Offenders to Prisons: A Critique and Research Agenda.’’ Journal
of Criminal Justice 16:207 216.
Benson, M. L., F. T. Cullen, and W. J. Maakestad. 1990. ‘‘Local Prosecu-
tors and Corporate Crime.’’ Crime & Delinquency 36:356 372.
Breyer, S. 1988. ‘‘The Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Key
Compromises Upon Which They Rest.’’ Hofstra Law Review 17:1 50.
Coleman, J. W. 1987. ‘‘Toward an Integrated Theory of White-Collar
Crime.’’ American Journal of Sociology 93:406 439.
Cressey, D. R. 1953. Other People’s Money: A Study in the Social
Psychology of Embezzlement. New York: The Free Press.
Croall, H. 1989. ‘‘Who is the White-Collar Criminal?’’ British Journal of
Criminology 29:157 174.
Croall, H. 2001. Understanding White Collar Crime. Buckingham,

England: Open University Press.
Cullen, F. T., G. A. Clark, and R. A. Mathers. 1983. ‘‘Public Support for
Punishing White-Collar Crime—Blaming the Victim Revisited.’’
Journal of Criminal Justice 11:481 493.
Cullen, F. T., B. G. Link, and C. W. Polanzi. 1982. ‘‘The Seriousness of
Crime Revisited: Have Attitudes Toward White-Collar Crime
Changed? Criminology 20:83 102.
Dabney, D. 1995. ‘‘Neutralization and Deviance in the Workplace.’’
Deviant Behavior 16:313 333.
Erikson, K. T. 1962. ‘‘Notes on the Sociology of Deviance.’’ Social
Problems 9:307 314.
Friedrichs, D. O. 1996. Trusted Criminals. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gauthier, D. K. 2001. ‘‘Professional Lapses: Occupational Deviance and
Neutralization Techniques in Veterinary Medical Practice.’’ Deviant
Behavior 22:467 490.
Hagan, J., I. Nagel, and C. Albonetti. 1980. ‘‘The Differential Sentencing
of White-Collar Offenders in Ten Federal Court Districts.’’ American
Sociology Review 45:802 820.
Hagan, J. and A. Palloni. 1986. ‘‘Club Fed and the Sentencing of White-
Collar Offenders Before and After Watergate.’’ Criminology
24:603 622.
Hickman, J. L. 1986. ‘‘Voter Reaction to Oklahoma County Commis-
sioners’ Occupational Crime.’’ Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology
14:9 12.
Higgins, M. 1999. ‘‘Sizing up Sentences.’’ ABA Journal 85:42 47.
Hollinger, R. C. 1991. ‘‘Neutralizing in the Workplace.’’ Deviant Beha-
vior 12:169 202.
Home Office. 2002. Criminal Statistics England and Wales, 2001.
London, England: Home Office.
Hopkins, A. 1981. ‘‘Class Bias in the Criminal Law.’’ Contemporary
Crises 5:385 394.
76 M. K. Dhami
Katz, J. 1980. ‘‘The Social Movement Against White-Collar Crime.’’

Pp.161 181. In Criminology Review Yearbook, vol. 2, edited by E. Bittner
and S. L. Messinger. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kitsuse, J. I. 1962. ‘‘Societal Reaction to Deviant Behavior: Problems of
Theory and Method.’’ Social Problems 9:247 256.
Lemert, E. M. 1951. Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Levi, M. 1989. ‘‘Fraudulent Justice? Sentencing the Business Criminal.’’
Pp. 86 109. In Paying for Crime, edited by P. Carlen and D. Cook.
Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
McBarnet, D. 1991. ‘‘Whiter than White Collar Crime: Tax, Fraud
Insurance and the Management of Stigma.’’ British Journal of Sociology
42:323 344.
Mitchell, A., P. Sikka, and H. Willmot. 1998. ‘‘Sweeping it Under the
Carpet: The Role of Accountancy Firms in Moneylaundering.’’

Accounting Organizations and Society 23:589 607.
National White Collar Crime Center Training and Research Institute 2000.
The National Public Survey on White Collar Crime. Morgantown, WV:
National White Collar Crime Center.
Nelken, D. 2002. ‘‘White-Collar Crime.’’ Pp. 844 877. In The Oxford
Handbook of Criminology, third edition, edited by M. Maguire,
R. Morgan, and R. Reiner. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Payne, B. K. 2003. Incarcerating White-Collar Offenders: The Prison
Experience and Beyond. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Pontell, H. N., D. Granite, C. Keenan, and G. Geis. 1985. ‘‘Seriousness of
Crimes: A Survey of the Nation’s Chiefs of Police.’’ Journal of Criminal
Justice 13:1 13.
Pontell, H. N., S. M. Rosoff, and E. Goode. 1994. ‘‘White-Collar Crime.’’
Pp. 345 371. In Deviant Behavior, edited by E. Goode. Englewood
Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Quinney, R. 1970. The Social Reality of Crime. Boston, MA: Little,
Brown and Company.
Reason, T. 2000. ‘‘Jailhouse Shock.’’ The Magazine for Senior Financial
Executives 16:111 118.
Rogers, J. W. and M. D. Buffalo. 1974. ‘‘Fighting Back: Nine Modes of
Adaptation to a Deviant Label.’’ Social Problems 22:101 118.
Rossi, P. H., E. Waite, C. E. Rose, and R. E. Berk. 1974. ‘‘The Seriousness
of Crimes: Normative Structure and Individual Differences.’’ American
Sociological Review 39:224 237.
Schrager, L. S. and J. F. Short. 1980. ‘‘How Serious a Crime? Perceptions
of Organizational and Common Crimes.’’ Pp. 14 31. In White-Collar
Crime: Theory and Research, edited by G. Geis and E. Stotland.
London, England: Sage.
Schur, E. M. 1971. Labeling Deviant Behavior: Its Sociological Implica-
tions. New York: Harper and Row.
Shapiro, S. 1990. ‘‘Collaring the Crime, Not the Criminal: Reconsidering

the Concept of White-Collar Crime.’’ American Sociological Review
55:346 365.
Shover, N. 1998. ‘‘White-Collar Crime.’’ Pp. 133 158. In The Hand-
book of Crime & Punishment, edited by M. Tonry. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Simpson, S. S. (2002). Corporate Crime, Law, and Social Control.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sutherland, E. H. 1940. ‘‘White-Collar Criminality.’’ American Sociologi-
cal Review 5:1 12.
Sutherland, E. H. 1945. ‘‘Is ‘White Collar Crime’ Crime?’’ American
Sociological Review 10:132 139.
Sutherland, E. H. 1949. White-Collar Crime. New York: Dryden.
Sutherland, E. H. 1983. White-Collar Crime: The Uncut Version. New

Haven, MA: Yale University Press.
Sykes, G. M. and D. Matza. 1957. ‘‘Techniques of Neutralization: A
Theory of Delinquency.’’ American Sociological Review 22:664 670.
Tillman, R. and H. Pontell. 1988. ‘‘Is Justice ‘Collar-Blind’?: Punishing
Medicaid Provider Fraud.’’ Criminology 53:294 302.
Weisburd, D., E. F. Chayet, and E. J. Waring. 1990. ‘‘White-Collar Crime and
Criminal Careers: Some Preliminary Findings.’’ Crime & Delinquency 36:
355.
Weisburd, D., E. Waring, and E. F. Chayet. 2001. White-Collar Crime and
Criminal Careers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Weisburd, D., S. Wheeler, E. Waring, and N. Bode. 1991. Crimes of the
Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts. New
Haven, MA: Yale University Press.
Wheeler, S. and M. L. Rothman. 1982. ‘‘The Organization as Weapon in
White-Collar Crime.’’ Michigan Law Review 80:1403 1426.
Willott, S., C. Griffin, and M. Torrance. 2001. ‘‘Snakes and Ladders:
Upper-Middle Class Male Offenders Talk About Economic Crime.’’
Criminology 39:441 466.

Deviant Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deviant Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]

On: 1 February 2010

White-collar Prisoners' Perceptions of Audience Reaction

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

University of Cambridge, Cambridge,

White-collar crime was originally defined by Sutherland

Received 10 October 2005; accepted 12 July 2006.

find the focus on offenders of high social status, income, or

Nelken 2002; Shover 1998).

prompted by the Watergate scandal (Katz 1980; Simpson

Trading Standards, and Consumer Protection in the U.K.

more serious than conventional crimes such as ‘‘street’’ theft.

the process of developing a criminal career. Thus, according

Although there is a great deal of theoretical literature on

may eventually contribute to our theoretical understanding

THE PRESENT STUDY

for replication and for comparison of research findings across

prison inmates. Specifically, the judiciary was that involved

crimes of fraud or deception and who fit the aforementioned

phase, and so they were asked to participate in the pilot

coming to the minimum security prison (most of this time

in a minimum security prison (Home Office 2002).

comments concerning the issues they had discussed or the

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

White-collar Offenders’ Perceptions of Others’ Reactions

defined. I didn’t commit a crime in the normal sense of the

Nine of the eleven participants who were aware of media

[I expected media attention] because of the large amount of

All but one of the participants in the sample perceived the

Furthermore, all but one of the participants in the sample

inmates in both work and social situations. All participants

ing actual audience reaction. Participants’ perceptions of

offender’s ability to portray himself as more than an

not harmed anyone, or because their offense differed from

victim (e.g., bank) into the ‘‘wrong-doer’’ while seeing them-

Willott et al. 2001).

how crimes are reported in the media; by the nature of

proportion of criminal convictions, that prison sentences are

were shaped by their conceptions of crime, which in turn

spectives, there may be misunderstanding and misprediction

have used similarly small samples of white-collar offenders

dictions, using a broader definition of criminal acts (e.g.,

Benson, M. L. and F. T. Cullen. 1988. ‘‘The Special Sensitivity of White-

Croall, H. 2001. Understanding White Collar Crime. Buckingham,

Katz, J. 1980. ‘‘The Social Movement Against White-Collar Crime.’’

Carpet: The Role of Accountancy Firms in Moneylaundering.’’

Shapiro, S. 1990. ‘‘Collaring the Crime, Not the Criminal: Reconsidering

Sutherland, E. H. 1983. White-Collar Crime: The Uncut Version. New

You might also like