Hartung-Burgess Debate

Offenses and Offenders

Taking the case study to the industry level, criminologist Frank E. Hartung focused his white-collar crime research on the Detroit, Michigan, meatpacking industry during World War II. In his attempts to address the ongoing definitional debates of the time, Hartung examined offenses as well as offenders. He questioned whether violations of wartime regulations could be considered white-collar crime, and argued that they could. As a result, he also questioned whether those offenders who committed the violations could be viewed as white-collar criminals. Hartung's resulting opinion on this issue was also affirmative, based on the evidence from his research.

Among other criminologists studying white-collar crime, Hartung's research was welcomed as major contribution to the literature. However, it drew considerable criticism from one of the most prominent sociologists of the time: Ernest W. Burgess. A well-known and respected Chicago School researcher, Burgess maintained that wartime regulatory violations were not white-collar crime. Similarly, he argued that the individuals who committed such acts were not white-collar criminals because they did not view themselves as criminals.

Burgess also attacked the validity of Hartung's research by stating that well over half of Americans were likely involved in wartime regulatory violations,[Page 387] and that it would be impossible that such a large segment of the population could not all be viewed as criminals. Hartung, and other scholars, had understandable difficulty with Burgess' proposition that a person is not a criminal if she does not view herself in that light. However, Hartung's research arguably made a contribution to the study of white-collar crime, and subsequent criminologists followed his lead in conducting in-depth studies of specific industries.