The Argument

Abstract

It is our belief that contemporary criminology has for too long looked past particular types of crime. These types of crime, which we refer to as ‘crimes of everyday life’, fall into something of a ‘grey zone’, and include, amongst other things: ‘jumping’ red lights; speeding; littering; ‘padding’ insurance claims; and knowingly purchasing fake goods, such as watches. These are the sorts of crimes that many people do not consider to be crimes at all. We will call these ‘crimes of the middle classes’. Not all these behaviours, we ought to add, are formally illegal. They are referred to as ‘sharp’, ‘shady’, or ‘unfair’ practices, or as ‘morally dubious’ behaviours. The phrase, ‘crimes of everyday life’, is used to signify that these activities are not unusual, uncommon, or, in some other way, events of an outstanding nature. They form part of many people’s experiences and as such are often treated by them and others as ‘mundane’ and ‘just part of life’, ‘typical’, or ‘par for the course’. All are so incredibly common that we (as a society as well as criminologists) have gazed past these activities as we search for explanations of ‘real crimes’ and ‘real criminals’ like serial killers, murderous children, and drug smugglers. As well as attempting to draw attention to these sorts of crimes, we seek to account for their prevalence in society by focusing not just on individual morality but also the moral norms of certain social groups and societies. An understanding of historical change also informs our thinking on this matter. In this way we aim to fuse together individuals, social groups, societies, and macro-level social changes in an explanation of one type of ‘crimes of the everyday’: those found in the contemporary marketplace....