Abstract
The theory of reintegrative shaming is unlike other theories of crime in the literature, with the notable exception of differential association, in that it does not exclude white collar crime from that which is to be explained. There is of course nothing wrong with having a theory of a subset of crime, so long as a theory of rape, for example, is described as a theory of rape rather than as a general theory of crime. However, there has been a tendency in criminology to present as explanations of crime in general, theories that adopt a class-biased conception of crime that excludes white collar offenses. The latest example is Wilson and Herrnstein's (1985) theory of low IQ and impulsiveness, inter alia , as central to the ‘human nature’ of crime. Since one would expect most white collar criminals to be intelligent and scheming rather than stupid and impulsive, Wilson and Herrnstein's decision to be wilfully blind to the vast reality of white collar crime causes them to present as a general explanation of crime something which could not be sustained if confronted with the totality of the patterns of crime in society rather than with a class-biased subset of criminal behavior. A theory of general applicability has arisen in this case because it was a theory generated originally out of my work on white collar crime with Brent Fisse and others.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
