White Collar Crime

[DeamondBleed]

How should White collar crime be treated? What should be the punishment and how should they compare to other crimes?

[Pherthon]

Was this thread inspired by Renee Rifkin perhaps DB?

[DeamondBleed]

Originally posted by Pherthon
Was this thread inspired by Renee Rifkin perhaps DB?

Partially, but I was more thinking of those two so called "rough traders" with the National Australia bank, they could have caused alot of damage, not just to the company, but to the ecconomy as a whole. Renee Rifkin annoys me, the way he's always trying to get out of jail and out of his sentence.

[JonBon]

What do you mean by 'white collar crime' exactly DB?

On a side note, I find it interesting that if a poor man steals 10 pounds in the street he is liable to be chased down and treated relatively roughly by police. If a rich man steals 10 million pounds from a company, he is likely to be dealt with courteously and respectfully by the police...

Interesting, since both men are surely innocent until proven guilty.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by JonBon
On a side note, I find it interesting that if a poor man steals 10 pounds in the street he is liable to be chased down and treated relatively roughly by police. If a rich man steals 10 million pounds from a company, he is likely to be dealt with courteously and respectfully by the police...

True enough, but generally that 10 pounds was taken under duress, while the 10 million was taken without threat (generally) of violence of physical harm.

[DeamondBleed]

Originally posted by JonBon
What do you mean by 'white collar crime' exactly DB?

White collar crime referse to things like emberrlement, insider trading, "cooking the books", or high levle freud.

Originally posted by RobRoy
True enough, but generally that 10 pounds was taken under duress, while the 10 million was taken without threat (generally) of violence of physical harm.

True, but also bare in mind that a much larger group of people are affected by the white collar crime, where one person may be threatend or hurt, rearly killed with the street crime, with the white collar crime many many more people could lose their jobs and their liverly hood which can be even worse in destroying lives (depending on the person).

[JonBon]

Originally posted by RobRoy
True enough, but generally that 10 pounds was taken under duress, while the 10 million was taken without threat (generally) of violence of physical harm.

I take your point RR, but I also think that the relative 'pull' of the two men also plays a part. A crooked businessman is likely to have many more friends in high places, and the ability to make things far more difficult for both police and local government than a street thief.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by JonBon
What do you mean by 'white collar crime' exactly DB?

On a side note, I find it interesting that if a poor man steals 10 pounds in the street he is liable to be chased down and treated relatively roughly by police. If a rich man steals 10 million pounds from a company, he is likely to be dealt with courteously and respectfully by the police...

Interesting, since both men are surely innocent until proven guilty.

It would not make any difference if they were rich or poor, or the amount they stole.

They would both be chased down if they ran, and be treated 'relatively roughly' if they put up a fight.

If on the other hand they dealt with the Police in a calm and co-operative manner they would be treated very differently!!

No matter how they are dealt with, they are still 'innocent until proven guilty'.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by JonBon
On a side note, I find it interesting that if a poor man steals 10 pounds in the street he is liable to be chased down and treated relatively roughly by police. If a rich man steals 10 million pounds from a company, he is likely to be dealt with courteously and respectfully by the police...

Maybe it's a Robin Hood type thing. Stealing is somehow okay provided you only steal from the rich?

[Bacchus]

I have had the misfortune to have been arrested (youthful indiscretion and all that), and by no means did I have "friends in high places" at the time. The arresting officers treated me quite calmly and professionally. I was not so much as spoken to in a raised tone of voice. Of course, I have no doubt that things would have been a great deal more unpleasant if I had been so foolish as to compound my initial error by attempting to flee or resist.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by Bacchus
I have had the misfortune to have been arrested (youthful indiscretion and all that), and by no means did I have "friends in high places" at the time. The arresting officers treated me quite calmly and professionally. I was not so much as spoken to in a raised tone of voice. Of course, I have no doubt that things would have been a great deal more unpleasant if I had been so foolish as to compound my initial error by attempting to flee or resist.

Or mugging someone with a weapon.

I'm not trying to rationalize the theft, or the impact it has on people. Being mugged or being fraudulantly stolen from amounts to the same kind of wrong. I am only discussung the treatment of the imprisoned by the arresting officers.

In general, you aren't going to find a businessman trying to take on an arresting officer, let alone a group of them, which is generally the case in such high-profile white-collar crimes. Police generally take a "fair but equal" response to those they are arresting. That is: if you attempt to resist them, if you flee, if you lie or have a weapon, they take whatever action is necessary to keep themselves safe and still apprehend you. If, instead, you hold out your hands for the handcuffs and go quietly without struggle, they have no need to bludgeon you into the back of a squad car.

So it makes sense that in chasing a mugger down, after ordering that person to stop, they are going to get a little rough in their handling of the criminal (if they are a criminal). If they apprehend someone who isn't resisting them, then why would they need to get rough at all?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by RobRoy
So it makes sense that in chasing a mugger down, after ordering that person to stop, they are going to get a little rough in their handling of the criminal (if they are a criminal). If they apprehend someone who isn't resisting them, then why would they need to get rough at all?

Some people may choose to flee or resist even though they are innocent because they don't trust the police or the legal system.

[RobRoy]

Originally posted by shadowfax
Some people may choose to flee or resist even though they are innocent because they don't trust the police or the legal system.

True. I didn't think I stated otherwise.

The question was only about the handling of those under arrest.

[Orange1967]

So what is it that you all consider to be "white collar crimes"? Muggings? Theft? Grand Theft Auto? Assault? Speeding? Running a red light?

People are usually innocent until proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt around here but I will also say that sometimes true, innocent folks get lost in the legal system such as this poor man that was accused of some not so nice crimes by those 11 year old girls. The poor man was stuck in jail for 8 months.
Now why did this happen? How come the truth didn't come out 8 months ago? Are 11 year old girls really that capable of lying that good for all this time? Or is it that when a woman(or in this case, little girls) accuse a man of such things, the man is automatically found guilty without anyone bothering to find out for sure...?

It almost sounds like that "when I say jump you say how high" slogan. The moment a woman points a finger at a man, he's pretty much guilty before proven innocent.
But if the man pointed the finger at the woman, it's a different story. Why is that?

[RobRoy]

White collar workers are non-manual labor, as opposed to blue collar workers who are manual labor. These positions include: managers, salaried professionals, office workers, sales personnel, and proprietors.

White collar crimes are almost always those involved in the mismanagement, embezzlement, or fraudulent use of monies. They would not, therefore, include rape, murder, breaking and entering, mugging, assault, etc.

It should be noted that just because someone is placed under arrest, or is considered a suspect, this does not make them guilty of a crime in the eyes of the law. Given how many trials are conducted in the public as well as the courtroom, these days, that generally means very little. That's why you will often see someone who was accused or arrested of a crime, and found innocent, turn around and sue for punitive damages, such as the guard at the Olympics who was accused of the bombing (his name escapes me).

[BlueDelvia]

Originally posted by shadowfax
Some people may choose to flee or resist even though they are innocent because they don't trust the police or the legal system.

Yes they sometimes do that... we've all seen those car chases where "innocent" folk put the lives of others at danger with their reckless disregard of road rules. (By innocent I mean anyone whom is thought to have committed a crime but has yet been tried for it.)

If you resist or strike a police officer (with no just cause) then you are committing a crime regardless if you were innocent of the crime they were arresting you for.

Now as to the question at hand...

I do believe white collar criminals should be prosecuted to the extent of the law as prescribed in the jurisdictiion they are in. But as with other blue color criminals I'd hope they'd be given the same consideration if it was a first offense.