Sutherland-Tappan Debate

MOST ASTUTE STUDENTS of criminology, particularly those interested in the topic of white-collar crime, are quite familiar with Edwin Sutherland's famous definition of the term: “a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation.” In focusing on white-collar crime as an area of research, Sutherland's main interest was in critiquing existing criminological theories. At this time, the main theories, such as social disorganization theory, sought to explain crime as a result of various structural factors, including poverty and inequality.

As Sutherland correctly argued, existing theories could easily explain violent, or common crimes committed by unemployed, street criminals. However, factors such as poverty could not accurately explain the criminal activities of educated, higher status individuals working in legitimate organizations. Sutherland's well-known definition of white-collar crime can be considered offender-based,[Page 777] since it includes characteristics of the individual offender. However, Sutherland later suggested an alternative, offense-based definition, which broadly defined all white-collar offenses as violations of trust. Although Sutherland's early definitions of white-collar crime focused on individuals, he created further conceptual confusion when his landmark study of white-collar crime actually dealt with sanctions against entire organizations.

Regardless of whether he was interested in individuals or corporations, what is clear is that Sutherland was satisfied to consider white-collar crime behaviors that were punishable by law. Even if such offenses did not result in actual punishment, Sutherland felt they were still white-collar crime. He also did not believe it was not necessary to differentiate between criminal and civil statutes. All that mattered, according to Sutherland, was that some violation of a statute or code was taking place within the organizational setting.

Sociologist Paul W. Tappan, who also had legal training, took offense at Sutherland's position that acts were “crimes” and individuals were “criminals” if they had not been formally charged and adjudicated within the justice system. In particular, Tappan argued that Sutherland was attacking the integrity of the business world by labeling corporations as “white-collar criminals.” Contrary to Sutherland, Tappan suggested in his 1947 article that “adjudicated offenders represent the closest possible approximation to those who have in fact violated the law, carefully selected by sieving of the due process of law.” Tappan felt that Sutherland's position exemplified an anti-business bias.

In response, Sutherland forcefully and eloquently defended his opinion by arguing that what mattered was what an individual actually did in terms of violating the law, not the way in which the criminal justice system dealt with him. In fact, Sutherland was concerned with the fact that existing statutes did not proscribe penalties for white-collar offenses. Sutherland was also deeply troubled with what he termed “differential implementation of law,” the process by which higher status offenders were treated more leniently than their poor, lower-class counterparts. Sutherland felt it was important that all criminologists, not just those interested in white-collar crime, should continue to research why the legal system tends to be biased in favor of the wealthy. Most criminologists at the time, and certainly those today, would side with Sutherland's position. The main flaw of Tappan's viewpoint is that he was suggesting that criminologists should not study what is referred to as the “dark figure” of crime—those offenses which may not be reported to or detected by the police. Tappan's strict legal interpretation of what types of behavior constitute crime was viewed as too narrow, given that much of what criminologists do view as crime occurs much earlier than the conviction stage of the criminal justice system. Unlike in Sutherland's time, today's modern criminologists now have access to data and other sources of information that provide even more evidence against Tappan's restricted opinion.

...