Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of legal and extra-legal characteristics on organizational victim decision-making

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A variety of factors influence decisions to mobilize formal social control. With few exceptions, studies considering the effects of legal (e.g., case specific) and extra legal (e.g., offender and victim characteristics) variables have concentrated on sentencing under criminal law, an outcome subject to sample selection bias given that the majority of cases never reach this stage. Analyses of earlier decision points (e.g., victim calls for service, police use of force, and arrest), have focused on street crime and single jurisdictions. A neglected research context is the organizational victim’s response to employee fraud. Using a sample of 663 fraud cases, this study applies Black’s (The behavior of law, San Diego, Academic, 1976) theory of law to victim organizations’ decisions to mobilize formal social control. Results demonstrate that extralegal characteristics weigh heavily on decisions to initiate both criminal and civil outcomes. Specifically, offenders’ education and age decreased the odds of criminal legal mobilization. Mobilization of criminal law was also more likely by government agencies. Implications for Black’s theory and directions for further research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Black, ([14], p. 22) offense-specific characteristics (e.g., seriousness) are subjective evaluations, not facts, and therefore “cannot be measured without a standard of value.” Alternatively, Gottfredson and Hindelang’s position ([46], p. 339) is that financial loss and type of offense represent objective characteristics of a crime.

  2. The same data [125] show that the highest rates of referrals and prosecutions in the past two decades occurred during the first year of the Clinton Administration (1993). Some have argued that changes in Federal level investigative priorities following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have diverted attention and resources away from white-collar crime [109].

  3. The ACFE is a professional organization of over 30,000 members that provides educational training and conducts research on fraud. The ACFE administers an exam that members must pass to earn the Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) designation. Additionally, there are minimum academic and professional requirements set by the ACFE Board of Regents, including a Bachelor’s degree and at least two years of professional experience in areas such as accounting, auditing, criminology or sociology, fraud investigation, loss prevention, or law. Members must abide by ACFE bylaws and the ACFE Code of Professional Ethics. ACFE frequently conducts surveys of its membership.

  4. CPE credit contributes to the current status of a CFE’s professional license. Typical opportunities for credit include attendance at workshops or training seminars sponsored by ACFE.

  5. Conversely, it is possible that this restriction resulted in an oversampling of insignificant cases. According to Klepper et al. ([74], p. 63), one potential problem is that some features of a case that may affect its processing cannot be observed by the researcher. Although selection bias may occur at multiple stages of the criminal justice system, it is least likely at the first stage examined here [74].

  6. For cases in which civil suits were filed, a case was considered finished when a judgment was rendered. Criminal cases were considered finished at the sentencing stage (e.g., conviction, acquittal, plea bargain). Approximately 25% of cases included more than one offender. Respondents were asked to provide information on the one offender deemed to be primarily responsible for the offense. The attribution of responsibility itself is a normative process, and represents a key component of social control within organizations [103].

  7. Data were provided to the researcher in the fall of 2002. Due to confidentiality issues associated with participants’ identities, narrative data were not made available. A limited amount of qualitative data (e.g., CFE responses to open-ended questions) was provided for supplementary analyses.

  8. Despite conceptual disagreement over defining white-collar crime, Clinard and Quinney’s [23] distinction between corporate crime and occupational crime as the two subtypes of white-collar crime is generally accepted among criminologists. The cases included in the current study fit within Clinard and Quinney’s conceptualization of white-collar crime. Asset misappropriation, which described the majority of cases, clearly reflects the occupational crime subtype, while the categories of corruption and fraudulent statements might arguably be described as either corporate crime or occupational crime. Although investigators considered organizations to be the primary victims of all offenses, it is possible that some organizations benefited from specific offenses (e.g., overstating revenue) and others outside the organization (e.g., shareholders) may have been secondary victims. It is important to note here that individual offenders, not organizations, were identified as the “responsible parties.” This distinction has been accepted in previous studies of “hybrid crime” in the Savings and Loan industry [20].

  9. Specifically, the survey asked respondents whether the perpetrator was “reported to law enforcement authorities.” The specific authority to which the referral was made was not identified, and likely varied given the jurisdiction. For those who were not referred, a follow up question asked whether the perpetrator “was sued in civil court.” Questions about subsequent decision stages of case processing (e.g., arrests, charges, convictions) were also included in the original survey, but are beyond the scope of the present study’s focus on early stage legal decision-making by organizational victims.

  10. The decision to code this variable as interval, rather than continuous, was made by ACFE research staff in the survey design stage. Although less precise than a continuous variable, it improves upon studies that have operationalized organizational size as a dummy variable ([73], p. 1000).

  11. In a study predicting another outcome (e.g., offending) examining the independent effects of each unique control mechanism might be preferred. The decision to combine these measures into a summary index was theoretically driven by Black’s contention that the level of available social control influences legal mobilization.

  12. Although equivalent to running a series of binary logits, Long ([81], p. 51) suggests that the multinomial logistic regression model is superior because “...all of the logits are estimated simultaneously, which enforces the logical relationships among parameters and uses the data more efficiently.”

  13. This term was created by multiplying age, gender, and education. The distribution of this three-way interaction ranged from 0 (all females) to 240 (oldest, highest educated males), with a mean of 37.45 and standard deviation of 47.75.

  14. It is possible that additional non-legal remedies (e.g., insurance) were utilized by this subset of victims. Future studies can improve upon this research by measuring access to alternative sources of social control.

References

  1. Albonetti, C. A. (1999). The avoidance of punishment: A legal–bureaucratic model of suspended sentences in federal white-collar crime cases prior to the federal sentencing guidelines. Social Forces, 78, 303–329.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Albonetti, C. A. (1998). Direct and indirect effects of case complexity, guilty pleas, and offender characteristics on sentencing for offenders convicted of a white-collar offense prior to sentencing guidelines. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, 353–378.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Albrecht, W. S. (2003). Fraud examination. Mason, OH: Thompson-Southwestern.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Avakame, E. F., Fyfe, J. J., & McCoy, C. (1999). “Did you call the police? What did they do?” An empirical assessment of Black’s theory of mobilization of law. Justice Quarterly, 16, 765–792.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bardach, E., & Kagan, R. (1982). Going by the book: The problem of regulatory unreasonableness. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Belknap, J. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Benson, M. L., Cullen, F. T., & Maakestad, W. (1990). Local prosecutors and corporate crime. Crime & Delinquency, 36, 356–372.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Benson, M. L., Maakestad, W., Cullen, F. T., & Geis, G. (1988). District attorneys and corporate crime: Surveying the prosecutorial gatekeepers. Criminology, 26, 505–518.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Benson, M. L., & Moore, E. (1992). Are white-collar and common offenders the same? An empirical and theoretical critique of a recently proposed general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 252–272.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Benson, M. L., & Walker, E. (1988). Sentencing the white-collar offender. American Sociological Review, 53, 294–302.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Berk, R. R. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological Review, 48, 386–398.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Black, D. J. (1998). The social structure of right and wrong (Revised edition). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Black, D. J. (1983). Crime as social control. American Sociological Review, 48, 34–45.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Black, D. J. (1979). Common sense in the sociology of law. American Sociological Review, 44, 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Black, D. J. (1976). The behavior of law. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Black, D. J. (1973). The mobilization of law. Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 125–149.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Braithwaite, J., & Fisse, B. (1987). Self-regulation and the control of corporate crime. In C. Shearing, & P. C. Stenning (Eds.), Private policing. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2003). Profile of the economy. Treasury Bulletin, 3–7. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

  19. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006). National unemployment rates, 1940–2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Calavita, K., & Pontell, H. N. (1994). The state and white-collar crime: Saving the savings and loans. Law and Society Review, 28, 297–324.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Campbell, J., & Lindberg, L. (1990). Property rights and the organization of economic activity by the state. American Sociological Review, 55, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Clarke, M. (1990). Business crime: Its nature and control. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Clinard, M. B., & Quinney, R. (1967). Criminal behavior systems: A typology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cooney, M. (2002). Still paying the price of heterodoxy: The behavior of law a quarter-century on. Contemporary Sociology, 31, 658–661.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Copes, H., Kerley, K., Mason, K. A., & Van Wyck, J. (2001). Reporting behavior of fraud victims and Black’s theory of the Behavior of Law. Justice Quarterly, 28, 343–363.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people’s money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Glencoe, IL: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., & Polanzi, C. W. (1982). The seriousness of crime revisited: Have attitudes toward white-collar crime changed? Criminology, 20, 83–102.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cullen, F. T., & Maters, R. A. (1983). Public support for punishing white-collar crime: Blaming the victim revisited? Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 481–494.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1986). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Daly, K. (1989). Gender and varieties of white-collar crime. Criminology, 27, 769–793.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Diamond, S. S. (1995). The challenges of socio-legal research on decision-making: Psychological successes and failures. Journal of Law and Society, 22, 78–84.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dixon, J. (1995). The organizational context of criminal sentencing. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1157–1198.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Dobbin, F., & Sutton, J. R. (1998). The strength of a weak state: The rights revolution and the rise of human resources management decisions. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 441–476.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Doyle, D. P., & Luckenbill, D. F. (1991). Mobilizing law in response to collective problems: A test of Black’s theory of law. Law & Society Review, 25, 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Edelman, L. B., & Suchman, M. C. (1999). When the ‘haves’ hold court: Speculations on the organizational internalization of law. Law & Society Review, 33, 941–991.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Edelman, L. B., & Suchman, M. C. (1997). The legal environments of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 479–515.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Engen, R. L., & Gainey, R. R. (2000). Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: The rules have changed. Criminology, 38, 1207–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Eitle, D. J. (2000). Regulatory justice: A re-examination of the influence of class position on the punishment of white-collar crime. Justice Quarterly, 17, 809–839.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Epp, C. R. (1999). The two motifs of why the ‘haves’ come out ahead and its heirs. Law & Society Review, 33, 1089–1098.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Epp, C. R. (1990). Connecting litigation levels and legal mobilization: Explaining interstate variation in employment civil rights litigation. Law & Society Review, 24, 145–163.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Felson, R. B., Messner, S. F., Hoskin, A. W., & Deane, G. (2002). Reasons for reporting and not reporting domestic violence to the police. Criminology, 40, 617–648.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Friedrichs, D. O. (2004). Trusted criminals (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fuller, S. R., Edelman, L. B., & Matusik, S. F. (2000). Legal readings: Employee interpretation and mobilization of law. Academy of Management Review, 25, 200–216.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Galanter, M. (1974). Why the ‘haves’ come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review, 9, 95–160.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gottfredson, M. R., & Gottfredson, D. M. (1988). Decision-making in criminal justice: Toward a rational exercise of discretion (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hindelang, M. (1980). Trite but true: Response to Braithwaite and Biles. American Sociological Review, 45, 338–340.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Greenberg, G. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Greenberg, G. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden costs of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Grossman, J. B., Macaulay, S., & Kritzer, H. M. (1999). Do the haves still come out ahead? Law & Society Review, 33, 803–810.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hagan, J. (1974). Extralegal attributes and criminal sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint. Law & Society Review, 8, 357–383.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hagan, J., & Nagel, I. H. (1982). White-collar crime, white-collar time: The sentencing of white-collar offenders in the Southern district of New York. American Criminal Law Review, 20, 258–289.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hagan, J., & Palloni, A. (1986). ‘Club fed’ and the sentences of white-collar offenders before and after Watergate. Criminology, 24, 603–621.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hagan, J., & Parker, P. (1985). White-collar crime and punishment: The class structure and legal sanctioning of securities violations. American Sociological Review, 50, 302–316.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hamilton, W. (2002). Corporate scandals bring calls for jail. Los Angeles Times, 9 July, sec. C, p.1.

  55. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–162.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hembroff, L. (1987). The seriousness of acts and social context: A test of Black’s theory of the behavior of law. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 322–347.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Herman, M. L. (2001). Broken promises, shattered trust: Preventing and responding to fraud and misuse of assets in a non-profit organization. Washington, D.C.: Non-Profit Risk Management Center.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Hickman, L. J., & Simpson, S. S. (2003). Fair treatment or preferred outcome? The impact of police behavior on victim reports of domestic violence incidents. Law & Society Review, 37, 607–634.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hindelang, M., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1976). The victim’s decision not to invoke the criminal justice process. In W. McDonald (Ed.), Criminal justice and the victim (pp. 57–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Hoelter, H. J. (2002). Harsh sentences for white-collar criminals a waste of resources. Miami Sun-Sentinel, 29 September, sec. F, p. 1.

  61. Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Deterrence in the workplace: Perceived certainty, perceived severity, and employee theft. Social Forces, 62, 398–418.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1982). Formal and informal social controls of employee deviance. Sociological Quarterly, 23, 333–343.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Holtfreter, K. (2005). Is occupational fraud ‘typical’ white-collar crime? A comparison of individual and organizational characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 353–365.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Holtfreter, K. (2004). Fraud in U.S. organizations: An examination of control mechanisms. Journal of Financial Crime, 12, 88–95.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Holtfreter, K., Piquero, N. L., & Piquero, A. R. (2008). And justice for all? Investigators’ perceptions of punishment for fraud perpetrators. Crime, Law & Social Change, 49, 397–412.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., & Blomberg, T. G. (2006). Consumer fraud victimization in Florida: An empirical study. St. Thomas University Law Review, 18, 761–789.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., & Pratt, T. C. (2008). Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization. Criminology, 46, 189–220.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Holtfreter, K., VanSlyke, S., & Blomberg, T. G. (2005). Sociolegal change in consumer fraud: From victim–offender interactions to global networks. Crime, Law & Social Change, 44, 251–275.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Holtfreter, K., VanSlyke, S., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. (2008). Public perceptions of white-collar crime and punishment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 50–60.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Jesilow, P., Klempner, E., & Chiao, V. (1992). Reporting consumer and major fraud: A survey of complainants. In K. Schlegel, & D. Weisburd (Eds.), White-collar crime reconsidered (pp. 149–168). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Karpoff, J. M., Lee, D. S., & Martin, G. S. (2006). The cost to firms of cooking the books. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=652121 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.652121.

  72. Katz, J. (1979). Legality and equality: Plea bargaining in the prosecution of white-collar and common crimes. Law & Society Review, 13, 431–459.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Kinsey, K. A., & Stalans, L. J. (1999). Which haves come out ahead and why? Cultural capital and legal mobilization in frontline law enforcement. Law & Society Review, 33, 993–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Klepper, S., Nagin, D., & Tierney, L. (1983). Discrimination in the criminal justice system: A critical appraisal of the literature. In A. Blumstein, et al. (Ed.), Research in sentencing: The search for reform (vol. II, (pp. 55–128)). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Koons-Witt, B. A. (2002). The effect of gender on the decision to incarcerate before and after the introduction of sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40, 297–328.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Kruttschnitt, C. (1982). Respectable women and the law. The Sociological Quarterly, 23, 221–234.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Kruttschnitt, C. (1980). Social status and sentences of female offenders. Law & Society Review, 15, 247–265.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organizations and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Lempert, R. O. (1976). Mobilizing private law: An introductory essay. Law & Society Review, 11, 173–189.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Levi, M. (1987). Regulating fraud: White-collar crime and the criminal process. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Makkai, T., & Braithwaite, J. (1994). The dialectics of corporate deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 31, 347–389.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Mann, K., Wheeler, S., & Sarat, A. (1980). Sentencing the white-collar offender. American Criminal Law Review, 17, 479–500.

    Google Scholar 

  84. March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision-making: How decisions happen. New York, NY: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Mason, K., & Benson, M. L. (1996). The effect of social support on fraud victims’ reporting behavior: A research note. Justice Quarterly, 13, 511–524.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Mastrofski, S. D., Reisig, M. D., & McCluskey, J. D. (2002). Police disrespect toward the public: An encounter-based analysis. Criminology, 40, 519–552.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Mastrofski, S. D., Snipes, J. B., Parks, R. B., & Maxwell, C. D. (2000). The helping hand of the law: Police control of citizens on request. Criminology, 38, 307–342.

    Google Scholar 

  88. McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2003). The smartest guys in the room: The amazing rise and scandalous fall of Enron. New York, NY: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Miethe, T. D., & Moore, C. A. (1986). Racial differences in criminal processing: The consequences of model selection on conclusions about differential treatment. The Sociological Quarterly, 15, 217–237.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Mooney, L. (1986). The behavior of law in a private legal system. Social Forces, 64, 408–418.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Morahan, J. (2004). Fraud hits small firms for 100 m € each year. Irish Examiner, 3 July, sec. A, p. 1.

  92. Myers, M. (1980). Predicting the behavior of law: A test of two models. Law & Society Review, 14, 835–857.

    Google Scholar 

  93. O’Donnell, J., & Willing, R. (2003). Prison time gets harder for white-collar crooks. USA Today, 12 May, sec. B, p. 1.

  94. Passas, N. (2001). False accounts: Why do company statements often offer a true and fair view of reality? European Journal of Criminal Policy & Research, 9, 117–135.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Paternoster, R., & Simpson, S. S. (1996). Sanction threats and appeals to morality: Testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law & Society Review, 30, 549–584.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Peterson, J. (2004). White-collar prison terms under debate. Los Angeles Times, 11 July, sec. C, p. 1.

  97. Reisig, M. D. (1998). Rates of disorder in higher-custody state prisons: A comparative analysis of managerial practices. Crime & Delinquency, 44, 229–244.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Reisig, M. D., & Holtfreter, K. (2007). Fraud victimization and confidence in Florida’s legal authorities. Journal of Financial Crime, 14, 113–126.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Reisig, M. D., McCluskey, J. D., Mastrofski, S. D., & Terrill, W. (2004). Suspect disrespect toward the police. Justice Quarterly, 21, 241–268.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Reiss Jr., A. J. (1984). Selecting strategies of social control over organizational life. In K. Hawkins, & J. M. Thomas (Eds.), Enforcing regulation (pp. 23–36). Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Report to the Nation. (2006). Austin, TX: Association of Certified Fraud Examiners.

  102. Robin, G. R. (1970). The corporate and judicial disposition of employee thieves. In E. O. Smigel, & H. L. Ross (Eds.), Crimes against bureaucracy. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Sanders, J., Yuasa, T., & Hamilton, V. L. (1998). The institutionalization of sanctions for wrongdoing inside organizations: Public judgments in Japan, Russia, and the United States. Law & Society Review, 32, 871–930.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Sarbanes–Oxley Act. (2002). Public Law 107-204, 116 Statute 745.

  105. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Shapira, Z. (1995). Risk taking: A managerial perspective. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Shapiro, S. P. (1990). Collaring the crime, not the criminal: Reconsidering the concept of white-collar crime. American Sociological Review, 55, 346–365.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Shapiro, S. P. (1985). The road not taken: The elusive path to criminal prosecution for white-collar offenders. Law & Society Review, 19, 179–217.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Shover, N., & Hochstetler, A. (2006). Choosing white-collar crime. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Simon, H. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Simpson, S. S. (2002). Corporate crime, law and social control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Simpson, S. S., & Piquero, N. L. (2002). Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law & Society Review, 36, 509–547.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38, 281–306.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Spohn, C., & Spears, J. (1996). The effect of offender and victim characteristics on sexual assault case processing decisions. Justice Quarterly, 13, 649–679.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Stone, C. D. (1975). Where the law ends: The social control of corporate behavior. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2006). Does gender modify the effects of race-ethnicity on criminal sanctioning? Sentences for male and female white, black, and Hispanic defendants. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 241–261.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2000). Ethnicity and judges’ sentencing decisions: Hispanic–Black–White comparisons. Criminology, 39, 145–178.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment costs of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36, 763–798.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Suchman, M. C., & Edelman, L. B. (1997). Legal rational myths: The new institutionalism and the law and society tradition. Law & Social Inquiry, 21, 903–941.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White-collar crime. New York, NY: Dryden.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Tillman, R., Calavita, K., & Pontell, H. N. (1997). Criminalizing white-collar misconduct: Determinants of prosecution in savings and loan fraud cases. Crime, Law & Social Change, 26, 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Titus, R. M., Heinzelman, F., & Boyle, J. M. (1995). Victimization of persons by fraud. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 54–72.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Tonry, M., & Reiss, A. J. (1993). Beyond the law: Crime in complex organizations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. (2003). U.S. Federal white-collar crime referrals for prosecution and prosecutions, 1987–2003 per 100 million. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.

  126. Traub, S. H. (1996). Battling employee crime: A review of corporate strategies and programs. Crime & Delinquency, 42, 244–256.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Tyler, T. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Uggen, C., & Kruttschnitt, C. (1998). Crime in the breaking: Gender differences in desistance. Law & Society Review, 32, 339–366.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Vaughan, D. (2002). Criminology and the sociology of organizations: Analogy, comparative social organization, and general theory. Crime, Law & Social Change, 37, 117–136.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Vaughan, D. (2001). Sensational cases, flawed theories. In H. N. Pontell, & D. Shichor (Eds.), Contemporary issues in crime and criminal justice: Essays in honor of Gilbert Geis (pp. 45–66). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Vaughan, D. (1998). Rational choice, situated action, and the social control of organizations. Law & Society Review, 32, 23–61.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Vaughan, D., & Carlo, G. (1975). The appliance repairman: A study of victim responsiveness and fraud. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 12, 153–161.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Walsh, J. P., & Seward, J. K. (1990). On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 15, 421–458.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Translated, edited and introduction by H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.

  135. Weisburd, D., Waring, E., & Chayet, E. (1995). Specific deterrence in a sample of offenders convicted of white-collar crimes. Crime & Delinquency, 36, 342–355.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Weisburd, D., Waring, E., & Chayet, E. (1990). White-collar crime and criminal careers: Some preliminary findings. Criminology, 33, 587–598.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Weisburd, D., Waring, E., & Wheeler, S. (1990). Class, status, and the punishment of white-collar criminals. Law & Social Inquiry, 15, 223–243.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Welsh, S., Dawson, M., & Nierobisz, A. (2002). Legal factors, extralegal factors, or changes in the law? Using criminal justice research to understand the resolution of sexual harassment complaints. Social Problems, 49, 605–623.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Wheeler, S., & Rothman, M. L. (1982). The organization as weapon in white-collar crime. Michigan Law Review, 80, 1403–1426.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Wheeler, S., Weisburd, N., & Bode, N. (1982). Sentencing the white-collar offender: Rhetoric and reality. American Sociological Review, 47, 641–659.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Yeager, P. C. (1987). Structural bias in regulatory law enforcement: The case of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Social Problems, 34, 330–344.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Zatz, M. S. (1987). The changing forms of racial/ethnic biases in sentencing. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 24, 69–92.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Zemans, F. K. (1983). Legal mobilization: The neglected role of the law in the political system. American Political Science Review, 77, 690–703.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Zemans, F. K. (1982). Framework for analysis of legal mobilization: A decision-making model. Law & Social Inquiry, 7, 989–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Mike Reisig, Dan Mears, Travis Pratt, and Merry Morash for their comments on previous drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, 4701 W. Thunderbird Rd., Glendale, AZ, 85306-4908, USA

    Kristy Holtfreter

Authors
  1. Kristy Holtfreter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristy Holtfreter.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Bivariate associations for study variables (N = 663)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holtfreter, K. The effects of legal and extra-legal characteristics on organizational victim decision-making. Crime Law Soc Change 50, 307–330 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-008-9139-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-008-9139-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation