Perception of Seriousness and Concern about White-Collar Crime: Some Results of an Opinion Survey Among Swiss Banks

Scientifically, little is known about white-collar crime in Switzerland or concern about white-collar crime and even less about how concerned bank employees are about this criminality. This article is based on a small opinion survey of Swiss bank employees and tries to explore perceptions of seriousness and concern about white-collar crime among people who, in their position, might have to face this issue regularly. Past assumptions on the public’s indifference towards white-collar crime seem not to be confirmed in this study as the results obtained demonstrate a greater sensitivity with respect to white-collar crime and especially towards crimes perpetrated by corporations. Even though Swiss bank employees do qualify white-collar offences as very serious acts, they are still more punitive with regard to ordinary crimes.     

Are “We” More Punitive than “Me”? Self-Construal Styles,Justice-Related Attitudes,and Punitive Judgments

Cross-cultural as well as procedural justice research suggests that an interdependent self-construal is connected to more justice-related concerns, more moral outrage following observed unethical behavior, and a preference for effective but constructive sanctions. Independent self-construal, on the other hand, is expected to be connected to weaker moral reactions toward injustice, but also to preferring punitive over constructive forms of sanctions. Two studies were conducted in which dispositional self-construal was measured. In Study 2, self-construal was also manipulated with a priming procedure. Results show that interdependent self-construal is connected to stronger emotional reactions toward injustice, to social and moral concerns, to preferences for constructive forms, but also to retribution-oriented goals of punitive sanctions. Independent self-construal, on the other hand, goes along with fewer moral concerns, lower punitiveness, but more draconic attitudes.     

Bridging the gap between judges and the public? A multi-method study

This article examines the gap between Dutch judges and the public in terms of preferred severity of sentences. It focuses on one particular explanation usually given for the gap: the lack of case-specific, detailed information on the part of the general public. Findings from three studies are reported and combined: (a) a survey among a sample from the Dutch population (N = 2,127), (b) a sentencing experiment with judges in Dutch criminal courts (N = 180), and (c) a sentencing experiment, using the same case materials as with judges, but now with a sample from the Dutch population (N = 917). Results show that providing the public with detailed case information indeed reduces severity of sentences preferred. Moreover, those members of the public who were given short and unbalanced newspaper reports preferred much harsher sentences than did those who were given the full case files. However, despite such a reduction in punitiveness as a result of information, the public’s preferred sentences remain much more punitive than judges’ sentences pertaining to exactly the same case files.

College education,major, or criminology classes? An examination of what drives students’ level of punitiveness

This study examines the level of punitiveness of criminology and criminal justice (CRIM) majors and non-majors. In particular, undergraduate students from a mid-western university situated in a rural area were surveyed to determine if college education, major, or exposure to CRIM classes impacts their punitive attitudes towards offenders. Regression analyses suggest that it is not the number of CRIM classes or the liberalization effect of college but the major that best predicts the level of punitiveness. Results also indicate that predictors of punitiveness differ between CRIM majors and non-CRIM majors. Implications of these findings are discussed.