Street Crime Vs White Collar Crime

If one is to turn on the news or pick up a newspaper one will most likely find a major article or coverage about a street crime that was committed not long ago and that only affected a few people. However, if one was to search for an article about a white-collar crime one will find it hard to find a case being covered on the news or newspaper. While street crime only causes relatively low financial damage white-collar crime yields a higher loss of capital. Nonetheless, the American justice system has primarily focuses on halting street crime offenders while comparably ignoring white-collar crime offenders. In an effort to better understand the relationship between the state’s actions against white-collar crime criminologist, such as Kitty …show more content…
They even go as far as to say that the government will not necessarily stop all types of white-collar crime, but only those that damage the economy. They make the distinction between manufactural and financial white-collar crime. The reason why they make this distinction is because they wish to address selectiveness of the government in their punishment of white-collar crime. They state that if the crime does not pose a threat to the economy they will overlook it, but if the crime causes a high loss of capital then they will mobilize their resources in the effort to stop the transgressions from occurring. Thanks to the distinction behind the reasons of the government’s pursuit of white-collar crime Calavita and Pontell argue that government has not grown intolerant of the transgressions that white-collar offenders commit, but that they are merely protecting their own interest. Overall, what Calavita and Pontell argue is that the government stance on white –collar crime is lax, as long as the crime does not threaten the wellbeing of the