Being dishonest may be the prominent practice, but we need to avoid falling into neutralization traps and let ourselves be corrupt as well. Lying is a slippery slope. Something as small as lies on our résumé can lead to large acts of dishonesty in the future as we get desensitized from repeated acts of dishonesty. Individuals can also avoid committing dishonest acts by being vigilant of the environment. In some firms, corruption is institutionalized (Wu, 2009).
Two prominent authors are known for their argument of self-control being the primary cause of crime. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) assert that self-control is the prominent cause of crime and is also linked to an array of life outcomes and behaviors (see Evans et al. 1997). Their work also suggests that low self-control has societal consequences that shape an individual's ability to succeed in social institutions and to avoid or form social relationships. Like minded criminologists argue that the relationship between crime and social failure is apparent.
Common white-collar crimes in Hong Kong include fraud, money laundering and embezzlement etc. Imprisonment, fines, community service or probation are typical sentencing of white-collar crimes in Hong Kong. White-collar crimes are actually as harmful to the society and economic institutions as violent crimes, hence it is important to know what causes this type of crime. In this essay, I will talk about major theories used to account for white-collar crimes, also discuss about strain theories and its effectiveness in explaining white-color crimes. A proportion of criminologists suggest that cultural influences maybe one of the explanations for white-collar crimes.
The first situation involved workplace ethic and fraud, therefore criminal prosecution is best suited to handle the case. The second scenario involved business to customer, making it difficult for both parties to have equal bargaining power, therefore allocating litigation to settle the dispute is the best choice. Scenario three is a dispute between two businesses. These two companies may always want to continue their business cooperation, therefore applying alternative dispute resolution (ADR) will be the best in resolving the dispute as both companies can come out
One of many reasons is to protect the company from information leaking to the competitors and if that were to happen, the competitors can easily take away market share/profit from the company; worst case scenario wipe out the company. Another reason is employees were to find out the pay of each employee, it will result in an unhealthy work environment, or employees may choose to quit. Clients exposed to the information can gain bargaining power of dictating how much they’re willing to pay if they’ve been unreasonably charged in the past. Also, if the intent is to keep the confidential information only to the president and not share with vital management, it may stunt growth and remove opportunities/ideas that some management may be able to provide if they could contribute. Therefore, most companies, as mine as well, the confidential information is built with rules of who can be provided with how much information, and where to draw the line when certain questions are asked; many a times I’ve been asked sales numbers of the company by curious salespersons and my response every time is apologetic that I cannot share that information and to seek to their
One of the theories it speaks of is the Pyrrhic defeat theory. This theory states that the criminal justice system is created to function in a particular fashion in order to create an image of crime where crime is actually seen as the “threat from the poor”. (Reiman, 2010, p.5) “Reimans’s theory suggests that those who have power to change the system benefit from the way it operates: they can go on committing harms and accumulating wealth without punishment, while the country remains focused on street crime and poor minority criminals.”(Leighton 2010) In order to accomplish this “The system must actually fight crime-or at least some crime-but only enough to keep it from getting out of hand and to keep the struggle to substantially reduce or eliminate crime.”(Reiman, 2010, p.5) This means that by creating an image that our system is trying to fight crime, but at the same time allowing certain crimes to exist and scare society, it benefits the wealthy in several ways. First, it promotes that the wealthy population is
However, the severity of punishments and the methods used by the law were beneficial and practical and they helped to reduce the amount of crime in England. The article “Crime and Punishment in the Elizabethan Era” expresses that crime was an issue in Elizabethan England, and a threat to the stability of society. To maintain order the penalties for committing minor crimes were generally punished with some form of public humiliation. For major crimes including thievery, murder, and treason those convicted were put to death. The sheer ruthlessness of the punishments discourage any sort of crime as they will scare the citizens into never breaking the law in fear of the consequences.
Talking about the downsides of government surveillance is important but, instead, let us explore its important benefits. The most obvious advantage of government surveillance is the huge reduction in crime. If calibrated properly, government surveillance might extirpate certain types of crime almost entirely. Few would commit easily monitored crimes such as assault or breaking and entering, if it meant being handcuffed within minutes. If surveillance recordings were stored for later analysis, other types of crimes could be diminished as well, because criminals would fear later discovery and punishment.
Hayward argued, “despite considerable success in combating certain forms of economic/acquisitive criminality, much of this Rational Choice Theory inspired Situational Crime Prevention lacks reflexivity.” (Hayward, 2007) Hayward criticizes how Rational Choice Theory emerges from the discipline and behavioural psychology, he believes that Rational Choice Theory may not be the best theory and believes that people should use Cultural Criminology, a theory where crimes are in the context of culture. “Cultural Criminology points to the subjective experiences and highly textured socio-cultural situations behind all crimes.” (Hayward, 2007) Theory’s as to why people commit crime and Situational Crime Prevention practices aren’t as effective as many claim for it to be. Essentially, Hayward believes Rational Choice Theory is not a valid theory and people should use Cultural Criminology, however, Farrell thinks Haywards argument was poorly written and Rational Choice Theory is still the best theory to
bank robbers are anonymous but highly aware of their individual culpability if they are caught) (Dixon a& Mahendran, 2012, p 6-7). In summary, the de-individuation theory argues that environmental conditions or antecedents (arousal, anonymity, group unity) lead to de-individuation (reduced self awareness, accountability and decreased concern for social evaluation) which leads to heightened responsiveness to immediate environment, impulsive, irrational and aggressive behavior. Anonymity seems to be the key element of de-individuation theory and figures in many studies on crowd behavior that show positive correlation between anonymity and increased