CRIMINOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE CRIMINAL ACTS OF CORRUPTION

CRIMINOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE CRIMINAL ACTS OF CORRUPTION[1]

 

Elsa RM Toule

 

Introduction

Corruption is a form of crime. Most people, including scholars, would agree on that. Criminology is a discipline that studies crime. However, corruption is rarely the focus of criminological research. When corruption is studied, it is mostly in the context of broader concepts of crime, such as organized crime (organized crime). The study of corruption from a criminological aspect is important, considering that criminology makes a very large contribution to criminal law, by revealing the factors that cause corrupt criminal behavior, which becomes the basis for criminal policy in the process of overcoming criminal acts of corruption.

Corruption and Organized Crime

            Organized crime has become a crucial area of ​​research within criminology on corruption. This was driven by international criminal policy initiatives in the late 1990s aimed at combating organized crime. Organized crime is considered a criminal phenomenon that increasingly threatens national economies, but law enforcement has found it difficult to capture the illegal networks behind it. Money laundering (money laundering) and corruption are considered as mechanisms used by criminal organizations to facilitate or to continue illegal activities that benefit them without detection. In the case of
money laundering, there is a unique symbiosis between organized crime and legal markets related to, among others, the financial sector, the financial sector real estate market and
art trade. In cases of corruption, a distinction is made between corruption at the political level, at the enforcement level, or at the administrative level.

            On a global scale, Van Dijk found a strong correlation between the level of organized crime in a country and the level of corruption, as reported by Transparency International.[2]   However, it is important to recognize that ties to illegal organizations are only one dimension of corruption. There are other dimensions to corruption that are the reason why it is important to discuss corruption as a criminal phenomenon.

Corruption and White Collar Crime

Corruption and White Collar Crime (WCC) are the second concept in criminological research on corruption. Sutherland, who introduced this concept, defined WCC as a crime committed by someone of high social status or prestige.
during his term of office.[3] This definition refers to his empirical research which explains that criminal behavior is carried out by members of the upper socio-economic class during their tenure, and in fact, the person concerned or the company is the beneficiary of this criminal behavior. In relation to the function of criminal law in defining WCC, according to Sutherland, the reality is that criminal law in general does not cover all forms of WCC because most of the dangerous activities by WCC criminals remain outside the courts. Considering that “upper class”  criminals often operate undetected, that if detected they may not be prosecuted, and that if  prosecuted they may not be convicted” the amount of criminally convicted persons is far  from the total population of white collar criminals. [4]

According to the 2008 Global Integrity report,[5]  Most countries have anti-corruption laws, even those considered prone to corruption. However, when we examine the application of anti-corruption laws, the results are less optimistic. In many countries, practice is limited, or cases end in disciplinary sanctions or dismissal due to a lack of accountability.
proof.

Etiology of Corruption 

As previously stated, criminologists place corruption within the scope of crimes that occur within organizational contexts. Therefore, it makes sense to explore whether theories developed to understand these forms of crime also apply to the etiology of corruption. In the context of corporate crime, corporations can act as agents offering bribes to achieve corporate goals, such as securing projects or obtaining government permits. On the passive side, members of private organizations or public services accept bribes for their own benefit, in exchange for services that may not be in the organization's best interest.

Theories about the causes of organized and white-collar crime are often elaborated within general theories of crime. These theories focus on three categories of explanatory variables: motivation, opportunity, and the operation of social control. According to Coleman,[6] Motives are a set of symbolic constructions of some kind of appropriate and desirable goals and activities. Opportunities entail potential courses of action, made possible by a particular setting of social conditions, which have been symbolically adopted by the actor. [7] The operationalization of control is the opposite of opportunity: the implementation of informal and formal controls, which serve as a deterrent to crime. While motivation is a subjective construct of psychological desires, and opportunity and control are rooted in objective social conditions, these variables are inextricably intertwined in a given setting. Motivation evolves in response to specific structural opportunities. Opportunity requires symbolic constructions that make psychological behavioral choices available to the perpetrator, while a lack of control contributes to the opportunity to commit crime.

This suggests that explanatory variables can be found at several aggregate levels: the level of individual actors and their social interactions, the level of structural organization and organizational culture, and the institutional level of political economy and business regulation. [8] Vaughan,[9] emphasizes the importance of understanding the interconnections and relationships between the environment, organizational settings and individual behavior to explain actions taken within an organizational context.

 

Globalization and Anomie

Most authors in the field of criminology acknowledge that globalization influences corruption. According to Passas,[10] Globalization multiplies, intensifies, and activates the criminogenic asymmetries at the root of corporate crime. Passas defines them as mismatches and gaps in the political, cultural, economic, and legal spheres. These are criminogenic factors that offer illegal opportunities, create motives to exploit them, and enable perpetrators to commit them.

Passas views corruption as a conservative force that maintains or increases asymmetries that hinder social, economic, and political progress and facilitates illegal markets that result from asymmetries. Corruption, on the other hand, is also a consequence of asymmetries. Companies operating slowly and with inefficient administrations will be tempted to pay "grease payments" to obtain business opportunities. This condition will allow the growth of attitudes that condone corruption.

On the other hand, criminogenic asymmetry can also be found in corruption regulations. The nature and strictness of anti-corruption regulations vary significantly from country to country, ranging from the lack of binding standards to the emphasis on regulation and criminalization. Although most countries have anti-corruption regulations developed after ratifying the OECD Convention Against Bribery, many remain ambiguous due to inadequate law enforcement.[11]

Asymmetries in corruption regulations not only provide de jure opportunities but can also contribute to moral ambiguity in the giving and receiving of bribes. This lack of clarity regarding regulatory requirements, and therefore applicable norms and boundaries of acceptable behavior, is often seen as a hallmark of white-collar crime.[12] A situation in which there is high uncertainty or confusion as to what is and what is not acceptable, due to radical changes in society, is labeled by Durkheim as a 'anomic' (normless) situation. Countries that have a reputation

High levels of corruption, perhaps in the midst of rapid and radical changes such as political changes, democratic systems, and free markets, can lead to instability. Corruption is unlikely to be blamed for this chaos, but in fact, it may reflect it. [13]  In this regard, Klitgaard argues that the rapid development of international trade and communications has led nations to be tempted by high economic gains while their resources are limited. New economic growth creates new needs, and incomes are eroded by inflation, necessitating corruption to meet these needs. [14]

Another alternative view of the influence of globalization on corruption is that it has increased sensitivity to corruption. Based on a review of publications and policy statements from the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), the IMF, and the World Bank, Williams and Beare,[15]  states that the key change that has occurred over the past few years is not the growth in the level of corruption globally or the severity of its effects on countries' economic growth but rather, the reframing of corruption as a source of economic risk and uncertainty that is problematically inconsistent with global economic goals and interests.

At the macro level, many criminologists emphasize the criminogenic effects of the culture of 'competition', a complex of values ​​and beliefs that is very strong in social systems based on industrial capitalism.[16]In this context, the primary concern is the attainment of wealth and success, and people are viewed as autonomous individuals with the power of reason and free choice, and therefore responsible for their own circumstances. Thus, a competitive culture views the competitive struggle for personal gain as positive, rather than negative or selfish. Competition generates maximum economic value for society as a whole. The desire for success and the pursuit of wealth are viewed by some criminologists as criminogenic factors.

Another point, pointing to the opposite fact, carries risks: when success is threatened and legal means are considered the only method of achieving wealth. According to Coleman, "fear of failure" is an inevitable correlate of the desire for success, which together constitute a powerful set of motivations for economic behavior. The critical question that then arises is whether business globalization has increased the prevalence of corruption or whether globalization has increased the visibility and sensitivity of corruption.

 

Strain

Theory Straightn was originally formulated by Merton as a general theory of crime. In his analysis of American society in the 1930s, Merton argued that the goal of economic success applies to all members of American society ( The American Dream), while the means recommended by culture to achieve these goals are not evenly distributed among all members and social groups in society. This can lead groups with less access to legal means of acquiring wealth to seek alternative, possibly illicit, means, which Merton dubbed 'innovation'. The underlying assumption is that society creates tension and can lead to deviant behavior. Cloward and Ohlin also add that the availability of legal means may be unevenly distributed across society. Children who grow up in environments with a large informal economy may have easier access to illegal opportunities, compared to children who grow up in environments without these criminogenic opportunities. Strain has proven very popular in explaining WCC, especially in combination with the idea of ​​anomie. Several studies have focused on the relevance of the situation strain that can be created within an organization to understand crime, especially when the opportunity to gain profit is threatened, which allows for supa behavior to obtain the desired opportunity.

However, the application of the theory strain This is not limited to corporations alone. This is because, first, because all types of organizations have the goal of seeking an entity, innovative ways to achieve goals – other than profit – can be used when conventional means do not provide access. Corruption as an innovative way to achieve organizational goals – which can be closely linked to personal goals – can therefore also be found in non-profit institutions, such as political parties and NGOs; second, the high level of ambition with which
The goals set and the perception that goal achievement is threatened, which creates a desperate situation. Even in a healthy and profitable company economy, tension can be a motive for breaking the rules when ambitions are set
So high, they can only be met by using innovative means. In his study of large retirement management companies, Clinard found that top management sets goals and responsibilities for achieving these goals, which are then passed on to lower management. Ambition from above can create so much internal pressure that only middle- or lower-level employees react, leading them to violate ethical and legal rules. Although lower-ranking officials may be forced to do dirty work, such as actual bribery, they are unlikely to do so without personal gain.

 
Indeed, the goal of achieving personal success may be linked to and
Dependence on the well-being of the organization can take the form of career advancement, stock ownership, and receiving personal bonuses. Alignment of personal interests and organizational goals is not limited to corporations but can be seen in political and governmental organizations. Violation of legal norms can also be behavior that conforms to standards and expectations. These standards can emerge from attempts to deal with problematic situations. This means that procedures and standards emerge that are clearly not in accordance with the law, but are seen and rationalized as acceptable and non-criminal, for example because there are no real victims. The same rationalization can apply to standard procedures for corruption.

Another rationalization is a situation where corruption is endemic, and many people engage in it. In a systemically corrupt society, "clientelism" and patronage are the norm, and anyone who doesn't participate is seen as deviant. This rationalization leads to deviant behavior that becomes deeply ingrained in the organizational culture and is passed on to new members.

Sutherland not only introduced WCC, but also developed a theory to understand deviance as social learning. According to differential association theory (Differential Association) Criminal behavior is learned like any behavior, and criminals must learn both the techniques of crime and the motivations beneficial to criminal behavior. Through differential association, techniques, rationalizations, and attitudes are passed on. The hypothesis of differential association is that criminal behavior is learned in association with the people who determine that behavior.

Closing Event

Corruption is a global phenomenon, and countries around the world, including Indonesia—which is listed as one of the most corrupt—have undertaken various efforts to address it. However, many countries have been unsuccessful in these efforts because they have not conducted a holistic assessment of the factors that cause corruption, resulting in inadequate responses. Criminology can be an entry point in determining appropriate criminal policies to address corruption.

Reading List

Beare, ME Corruption and Organized Crime: A Means to an End. In B. Rider (ed.) Corruption: The Enemy Within The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997

Coleman, J. W. Toward an Integrated Theory of White-Collar Crime, 1987. American Journal of Sociology 93 (2)

Coleman, JW 1995. Motivation and Opportunity: Understanding the Causes of White Collar Crime. In G. Geis, R Meier & L. Salinger (eds.), White Collar Crime (3rd edition)  New York: Free Press

Dijk J, van., I. Sagel Grande and L. Toornvliet, 2006,  Actuele Criminologie, The Hague.

Global Integrity Report, 2008, results: http://report.globalintegrity.org/globalindex/results.cfm

Klitgaard Robert, Eradicating Corruption, 1998, Obor Foundation, Jakarta

Kramer, R.C. & Michalowski, R.J., 2006. State corporate crime. Worngdoing at the intersection of business and government. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press

 Passas, N. 1998. Structural Analysis of Corruption: The Role of Criminogenic Asymmetries. Transnational Organized Crime

Shover, N,. & Bryant, KM, 1993. Theoretical Explanations of Corporate Crime, in: Blankenship, MB Understanding Corporate Criminality. New York: Garland Publishing,

Slapper G and Tombs S, 1999, Corporate crime. Essex: Pearson

Sutherland, EH1961, White collar crime. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Transparency

International, the Corruption perception Index, 2008, Retrievable from: http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2008/cpi2008/cpi_2008_table 20 January 2012)

Vaughan, D. 2002. Criminology and the sociology of organizations. Analogy, comparative social

organization, and general theory. Crime, Law and Social Change, 37

Williams, JW, & Beare, ME The business of bribery: Globalisation, economic liberalization and the 'problem' of corruption. Crime, Law & Social Change, 32, 1999     

Zimring, FE, & Johnson, DT On the comparative study of corruption. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 2005