| Abstract: | This article assesses Hirschi and Gottfredson claims about patterns and explanations of White-collar crime. It points out several flaws in their analysis and shows (1) that the UCR offense categories of fraud and forgery are not appropriate indicators of white-collar or occupational crime because the typical arrestee in these categories committed a nonoccupational crime; (2) that the demographic distribution (age, sex, race) of these "white-collar" crimes is not the same as it is for most ordinary crimes; and (3) that the occurrence of these "white-collar" crimes is not relatively rare. The implications of the findings for research and theory on crime are also discussed. |
