CLASS BIAS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

1

• CLASS BIAS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

2
WHAT IS WHITE COLLAR CRIME / CORPORATE

• WHITE COLLAR CRIME
• CRIMES COMMITTED BY PERSONS OF RESPECTABILITY
  AND HIGH SOCIAL STATUS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
  OCCUPATIONS
• SUTHERLAND 1949)
• THEREFORE A BROAD DEFINITION INCLUDES CORPORATE
  CRIME ALSO
• EMPLOYEE THEFT, FRAUD, CYBERCRIME, EMBEZZLEMENT,
  INSIDER TRADING, BUSINESS CRIME , HEALTH AND
  SAFETY VIOLATIONS, POLLUTION, FALSE
  ADVERTISEMENT ETC.

3

• EXTENT OF WHITE COLLAR /CORPORATE CRIME
• NO ONE KNOWS THE EXTENT OF COMMERCIAL FRAUD. WE
  CANNOT MEASURE IT BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON HOW MANY
  FRAUDS ARE REPORTED. ALL WE CAN TELL IS THAT THE
  REPORTED INCIDENTS OF FRAUD SHOW AN EVER
  INCREASING TREND IN THE NUMBER AND SIZE (BARBARA
  MILLS EX HEAD OF THE S. F. O.
• TAX FRAUD COSTS 5 BILLION PER YEAR
• CORPORATE CRIME KILLS MORE PEOPLE PER YEAR THAN
  ACTS LISTED AS CRIMINAL (BOX 1983)

4
A QUESTION OF CLASS?

• THE POWERFUL COMMIT DEVASTATING CRIME S AND GET
  AWAY WITH IT, WHILST THE POWERLESS COMMIT LESS
  SERIOUS CRIMES BUT GET PRISON (BOX 1983)
• THE CRIMES OF THE RESPECTABLE ARE VIEWED MORE
  SYMPATHETICALLY THAN THOSE OF MISCREANTS (
  VILLAINS) FROM HUMBLER BACKGROUNDS
• (BRAKE ET AL)
• EVEN IN CASES REACHING THE COURTS AND RESULTING
  IN CONVICTION THE PENALTIES ARE LIGHT COMPARED TO
  SANCTIONS APPLIED TO TYPICAL STREET CRIMES CRAIG
  LITTLE (1995)
• ALL THE ABOVE ARE RELATED TO THE MARXIST
  ANALYSIS OF POWER ARGUING THAT WEALTH, POWER AND
  SOCIAL STANDING INFLUENCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF
  POLICE STOPS , WHETHER A PERSON IS CAUTIONED ,
  WHETHER THEY RECEIVE A SENTENCE , WHERE THEY ARE
  SENT IF THEY RECEIVE A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE

5
POLICE STOP AND SEARCH

• PILIAVIN AND BRIAR(1964)
• -ARREST OR REPRIMAND?
• -SALVAGEABLE OR PUNK
• -THESE ASSESSMENTS OF CHARACTER WERE BASED
  CUES RACE, DRESS, DEMEANOUR
• SKOGAN (1990)
• -ARREST WILL DEPEND ON THE SUSPECTS ATTITUDE
  TOWARDS THE POLICE. UNEMPLOYED, LESS EDUCATED,
  AND THOSE FROM INNER CITIES ARE MORE UNHAPPY WITH
  THE POLICE THEREFORE IT SHOWS IN DEMEANOUR
• -UNEMPLOYED MORE LIKELY TO BE STOPPED ON FOOT
  THAN THOSE WHO HAVE A JOB

6

• PROSECUTE OR CAUTION?
• WILL IT DEPEND UPON CLASS?
• BENNET (1979) MIDDLE CLASS IN LONDON WERE MORE
  LIKELY TO BE CAUTIONED THAN THE WORKING CLASS
• -DEMEANOUR
• -FISHER AND MAUBY (1982) PARENTS PERCEIVED
  ATTITUDES INFLUENTIAL.

7
COURTS

• CROW ET AL (1995) IN THE NORTH OF ENGLAND IN
  (1993) 75-91 OF DEFENDANTS SAMPLED WHERE
  UNEMPLOYED
• -SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS AS A FACTOR INFLUENCING
  SENTENCING DECISIONS.
• -EMPLOYMENT / UNEMPLOYMENT AS FACTORS INFLUENCING
  SENTENCING DECISIONS
• -EMPLOYMENT A SIGN OF GOOD CHARACTER
• -CUSTODIAL SENTENCE WILL MEAN THE LOSS OF
  EMPLOYMENT
• -IN THE CASE OF WHITE COLLAR OFFENDERS IT CAN BE
  ARGUED THAT THEY HAVE MUCH TO LOSE LOSS OF FAMILY
• LOSS OF HOUSE
• LOSS OF COMMUNITY STANDING (LEVI 1989)
• -CONVERSELY UNEMPLOYED LESS TO LOSE THEREFORE
  MAY BE MORE LIKELY TO END UP IN PRISON
• NOTE - MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE UNEMPLOYED TO PAY
  FINES THEREFORE MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE A
  CUSTODIAL SENTENCE (INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION?)
• WEALTHIER OFFENDERS ABLE TO PAY LARGE
  FINES/COMPENSATION THEREFORE FINANCIAL (RATHER
  THAN CUSTODIAL) PENALTIES MORE LIKELY.
• -WEALTHIER CAN AFFORD TO PAY FOR BETTER LEGAL
  REPRESENTATION.

8

• FACTORS TO REDUCE THE LENIENCY OF SENTENCES FOR
  LOWER CLASS OFFENDERS.
• 1 DEMEANOUR AND BEARING (SEE HOOD RACE AND
  SENTENCING)
• 2 REMORSE (LACK OF) OR PERCEIVED LACK OF
• 3 NON ACCEPTANCE OF THE COURTS AUTHORITY
  (DAVIES, CROALL, TYRER 1995)

9

• FACTORS OPERATING TO REDUCE THE SEVERITY OF
  SENTENCES FOR WHITE COLLAR OFFENDERS
• ABSENCE OF DIRECT VICTIMISATION
• LACK OF INTENT?
• LACK OF PUBLIC FEAR
• IN THE CASE OF CORPORATE OFFENCES FINES ARE OFTEN
  LEVELLED AT THE ORGANISATION NOT INDIVIDUALS
• THEY ARE EASILY ABSORBED BY THE ORGANISATION
• THEY SERVE AS A SHIELD PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL
  EXECUTIVES FROM FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES
• (CRAIG LITTLE 1995)
• MICHAEL CLARKE (1990) ARGUES THAT THERE IS A
  TENDENCY FOR MATTERS TO BE SETTLED OUT OF COURT
  INTERNALLY / PRIVATELY WHEN DEALING WITH WHITE
  COLLAR CRIMINALS ( AN OPTION NOT NORMALLY OPEN TO
  STREET CRIMINALS ETC. THEREFORE WHITE COLLAR
  CRIMINALS ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE ARRESTED, CHARGED
  AND SENTENCED.
• WHEELER ET AL (1988) IN USA FOUND SOME EVIDENCE
  OF JUDGES IDENTIFYING WITH WHITE COLLAR
  OFFENDERS MORE THAN IN CASES INVOLVING VIOLENCE
  AND ROBBERY
• HOWEVER , SEVERITY OF PENALTIES TO WHITE COLLAR
  OFFENDERS DID DEPEND TO A CERTAIN EXTENT ON
  CRITERIA NORMAL FOR OTHER CRIMES (PRIOR RECORDS,
  HARM TO VICTIMS)

10

• DAVIS AND STASZ (1990) POINT TO THE JUDICIAL
  LENIENCY AS FACTOR IN LOWER PENALTIES FOR WHITE
  COLLAR OFFENDERS. ALSO THEY CITE SOCIAL CLASS AS
  AN OBVIOUS BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE FACTOR IN EXPLAINING
  DISCREPANCIES IN PUNISHMENT BETWEEN THE WORKING
  CLASS AND WHITE COLLAR OFFENDERS.
• SINCE THE STATE IS TIED TO THE CAPITALIST CLASS
  IN A WIDE RANGE OF WAYS, LAWMAKERS HAVE A VESTED
  INTEREST IN LENIENCY (TO WHITE COLLAR DEVIANCE)
  DAVIS AND STASZ (1990)
• NOTE EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER WHITE COLLAR
  CRIMINALS ARE TREATED MORE LENIENTLY BY THE
  COURTS IS CONTRADICTORY.

11

• NOTE EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER WHITE COLLAR
  CRIMINALS ARE TREATED MORE LENIENTLY BY THE
  COURTS IS CONTRADICTORY.
• SHAPIRO (1989) SECURITIES OFFENDERS DETECT
  LENIENCY FOR HIGHER STATUS OFFENDERS.
• HOWEVER
• WEISBURD ET AL (1991) USA FOUND HIGHER STATUS
  OFFENDERS MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE PRISON SENTENCES
• LEVI (1991) JUDGES ARE SENSITIVE TO PROSPECTIVE
  MEDIA AND SOCIAL CRITICISM THAT THEY ARE LETTING
  OFF THEIR OWN KIND

12

• CASE STUDY
• (LEVI) THE TRAIL OF THE GUINNESS FOUR IN 1988
  HIGHLIGHTED A CONTEST
• BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW MONEY ELITES
• JUDGE MR JUSTICE HENRY PART OF THE ESTABLISHED
  ELITE
• JURY NOT REPRESENTATIVE ( LEVI SUGGESTS BIAS ON
  BEHALF OF THE JURY AGAINST DEFENDANTS ON GROUND
  OF CLASS/RACE
• ALL DEFENDANTS WERE JEWISH 2 WERE SELF MADE
  MILLIONAIRES
• WHAT WE HAD HERE WAS A CROSS CLASS ALLIANCE OF
  THE RESPECTABLE POOR WITH THE ELITE AGAINST THE
  WIDE BOYS WHO IN MANY WAYS WERE REPRESENTATIVE
  OF THE MUCH VAUNTED THATCHERITE ENTERPRISE
  CULTURE (LEVI 1991)

13
THE ROLE OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE

• SFO CREATED BY CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1987
• SFO RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING AND PROSECUTING
  FINANCIAL FRAUD.
• CONTINUED DEBATE SFO IS ITS INABILITY TO SECURE
  CONVICTIONS IN HIGH PROFILE FRAUD TRAILS
• THE MAIN SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE FAILURES
• 1992 GUINNESS 11 CASE AGAINST LORD SPENSE AND
  ROGER SEELIG (10.5 MILLION FRAUD ) COLLAPSED
• 1993 ROGER LEVITT SENTENCED TO 180 HOURS C S FOR
  58 MILLION FRAUD
• 1994 ACQUITTAL OF GEORGE WALKER (BRENT WALKER
  HEAD) OF 164 MILLION FRAUD CHARGES
• 1996 KEVIN AND IAN MAXWELL CLEARED OF FRAUD
  CHARGES (440 MILLION LOSS OF PENSION FUNDS
• MAXWELL CASE 25 MILLION AND IS THE MOST
  EXPENSIVE TRIAL UP TO DATE
• THE INVESTIGATION TOPPED 11 MILLION BUT UNABLE
  TO SECURE A CONVICTION

14

• WHY?
• 1 LACK OF FUNDING?
• 2 OVERWORKED / INEFFICIENT STAFF
• 3THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE/ JURY
• LEVI ARGUES THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS ISSUE ABOUT
  JURY REPRESENTATIVENESS IN SUCH TRIALS E.G.
  SEVERE UNDERREPRESENTATIVENESS OF PROFESSIONAL/
  MANAGERIAL AND NON MANUAL WORKING CLASS PERSONS
  ON MAJOR FRAUD TRAIL JURIES
• SHOULD JURIES BE REMOVED FROM SERIOUS FRAUD
  TRIALS (SEE EXPRESS ARTICLE)