Crime has become one of the most pressing public concerns of the time. Each time a newspaper is opened or a television is turned on, graphic stories of robbery, murder and mayhem appear. It is common crimes, like these, that fill the world with fear and that become the centre of complaints. Though street crime is understandably an important concern, it should not eclipse another form of crime that has become far more costly, in both financial and social terms: that of corporate crime. Corporate crime can best be defined as "illegal acts committed by corporate employees on behalf of the corporation and with its support." (Kendall, 214) Examples of corporate crime can range from antitrust vilations to false advertising to procefixing. These crimes are deliberaltely planned and executed by corporate personnel for the sake of enhancing profits. (Kendall, 214)
             Corporate crime is very hard to gain concrete statistics on as perpetrators are rarely caught and almost never prosecuted in a criminal court. This proposal will deal with the question of whether or not corporate crime is a result of capitalism, but more specifically bureaucratic structure. A beauracracy is "an organizational model charcaterized by a hierarchy of authority, a clear divison of labour, explicit rules and procedures, and impersonality in personnel matters." (Kendall, 181) When considering that almost all corporations are beauracracies, one can identify certain links between beauracratic policies and the continous rise of corporate crime rates. By focusing on three characteristics of beauracracy, that of centralization of autority, specialized ideologies, fragmentation and routinization, this proposal will try to prove that these features are in part responisble for corporate crime.
             Even though corporate crime is much more costly and damaging than street crime, it has managed to stay out of the public eye. While one is quite used to seeing a politiican ...