The author thinks the importance of a study of organizational or white-collar deviance willincrease in our society. The main topics of this study are the following : 1. What kind of organizational or white-collar activities are defined as deviance by the meaningful world? 2. Types of regulation and analysis of their effects ; 3. Analysis of the conditions and processes of becoming organizational or white-collar deviants ; 4. How does the organizational or white-collar crime influence our social life in terms of its innovation or stagnation? 5. Social responsibility of an organization and its leaders. In order to study these agenda deeply, it is not enough to rely on the traditional deviance theories. We have to mobilize organization theories or political power models and develop the theoretical perspectives which will be able to realize the basic processes of social life.

View full abstract

1. An organizational crime is different from "organized crime." An organized crime is a collective crime of illegal groupe of individuals, while an organizational crime is an illegal activity of an organization. A gang crlme is an example of an organized crime. A corporate crime is an organizational crime. A corporation is an organization. It is a legal entity. It exists independent of any given individual who may occupy a given role or position within a corporate structure. A corporate crime is an organizational crime, but is not an "occupational crime" committed by a white-collar worker-Edwin Sutherland entitled his famous treatise "White Collar Crime" (1949/1961), but in actuality he studied a corporate crime. An occupational crime is an individual crime. The distinction between occupational crime and organizational crime is as follows. An occupational crime is committed by an agent (employee) against the organization (corporation), while an organizational crime (a corporate crime) is committed on behalf of the organization (corporation). Embezzlement committed by a managerial agent is an example of an occupational crime. Examples of organizational crimes are anti-trust violations and environmental pollution. 2. The Kigyososhikitai-sekininron (organization theory of corporate criminal liabilily) is used to regulate an organizational behaviour of a corporation through criminal sanction. The main points of this theory are as follows. First, this theory observes organizational behaviours of corporation as a whole. Second the theory examines the illegality and culpability of individual acts of agents of organization (include a chief executive officer and a president), noticing their roles in illegal (deviant) organizational behaviours of the corporation. An activity of a corporation is an organizational behaviour, so it is irrational to dissolve a corporate activity into individual acts of its agents. Although the costs of corporate (organizational) crimes are staggering, little theoretical or empirical work was done on the topic of a corporate (organizational) crime in Japan. Kigyososhikitai-sekininron has been developed as a new theoretical strategy for corporate crime control. Kigyososhikitai-sekininron matches the characteristics of Japanese corporation (the Kaisha). This theory is beginning to penetrate the judicial practice-some examples are Morinaga Powdered Milk Case and Minamata Disease Case. 3. In Japanese corporation (kaisha), internal self-regulation is not so effective. Enforced Self-regulation (John Braithwaite) does not work. A criminal sanction is indispensable for regulation of an organizational deviant behaviour, but a criminal law system against an organizational crime is not sufficient. So new legislation based on "Kigyososhikitai-sekininron" is required. Organization theory in the field of sociology or sociological criminology is necessitated for reconstruction of a corporate criminal law system.

View full abstract

This paper attempts to integrate two approaches - one by organization theory and another by control theory - in the study of organizational crime. For this purpose, the author would like to analyse the organizational factors and the regulatory ones in collusion, and to explain the correlations between them. "Cartel mind", the motive of collusion, is the function of two variables : the utility of collusion and its guilty consciousness. The utility of collusion is determined by its benefit and cost. They vary with two factors in the task environment of collusive firms. The first factor is the incentive of collusion that relates with its benefit. The incentive consists partly of the gaps between the goals and achievements of these collusive firms and partly of the uncertainty to achieve their goals. The second factor is the conditions which promote firms to collude ; and these conditions relate with the cost of collusion. They consist of the similarity of products and each share of collusive firms, and of their information cost. The information cost is determined by three elements : (1) The number of collusive firms, (2) their concentration ratio, and (3) the existence of industrial groups. Furthermore, regulatory environment relates to task environment. The industrial policies of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) change the state of task environment, and consequently influence the benefit and cost of collusion. The regulation of the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) also affects its cost.Moreover, "cartel mind" varies with the guilty consciousness of collusion. Whether the policies of MITI and FTC are permissive to collusion, is very influential to this guilty consciousness. Past experiences of collusion of the industry are also important to that factor. In this paper, these correlations between organizational and regulatory factors are examined by a case study of collusions in oil industry, 1972-73. As a result, it makes clear that these two factors are indispensable to explain the formation of collusion which is a very important part of organizational crime.

View full abstract

This paper reviews "organizational crime" studies in the U. S. A. The fundamental question in regard to "organizational crime" is whether organizational crime is really crime or not. Even though the violation of criminal law is called as crime conventionally, we may call organizational crime as crime when it fulfils two criteria which were submitted by E. H.Sutherland : Legal description of an act as socially harmful and legal provision of a penalty for the act. Therefore various civil and administrative law violations fall under the category of crime. The studies are divided into two categories : the studies on criminogenic factors in organization and studies on regulation of organizational crime. The studies on criminogenic factors in organization are classified as follows : A. Organizational structure A-1 organizational norms A-2 fragmentalization of information and responsibility in organizational role system A-3 goal rationality of organization B. Adaptation of organization to environments B-1 passive adaptation B-2 active adaptation The main issue of "criminogenic factors in organization" has moved from "organizational structure" to "adaptation of organization to environments". Furthermore, in the particular field of "adaptation of organization to environments", "active adaptation" approach becomes the main trend. In "active adaptation" approach, organization is regarded as an active subject which creates favorable or "adaptable" environments in contrast with "passive adaptation" approach which thinks organizational structure as defined by environments. Generally speaking, study on criminogenic factors in organization becomes combined with study on effectiveness of regulation. That is, intervention in organizational structure turns out to be appropriate for regulation especially against corporate organizations. This paper examines this issue in details making reference to J. Braithwaite's and C. D. Stone's theories.

View full abstract

This paper studies the mechanism of the construction of an offender's motive during criminal investigation and prosecution as a statement by which to interpret his acts. Motives are constructed after the fact as interpretations of acts and are attributed to the actor. The criminal investigation and prosecution process adapts concrete offenses to abstract categories of crime. This process is a public ex post facto interpretation of offensive acts. Therefore an offender's motive is constructed during the criminal proceedings and is attributed to him. In other words, an offender's motive is not a psychological fact which existed at the empirical scene of the crime, but a product which is spun out of the communication between a representative of authority and a deviant actor. From this standpoint, the suspect's confession, the report of the criminal investigation and the trial in criminal court are analyzed. As an actor is an interpreter of his own acts, the confession of a motive by a suspect must be viewed not as venting a pre-existing psychological fact but as an attempt to account for his offensive conduct. This work is done under the case-solving-frame furnished by the investigator in the interrogation process, so the statement of motive constructed in this situation is constrained by the view of the authorities. Furthermore, the statement of motive fixed in the report of the investigation cannot be reduced to the suspect's past mental state at the scene of the crime, because the spoken words in the confession are transformed into written words in the report, and the information is limited by this conversion. Therefore the verdict in court is given not to the act itself but to the concept which was granted to it during the investigation. Since the offender's motive does not belong to the past empirical world, this verdict is actually a technical simplification of the multiple reality of the crime. The work of achieving a verdict is also a search for the motive of the suspect according to 'taken-for-granted ideas.' Thus the offender, an object attributed a deviant motive, comes to be categorized as the anonymous person type "criminal."

View full abstract

This paper aims at considering the subjective aspect of news organization as a definer of deviance. This study is based on the research interviews with reporters and editors working in newspaper companies done in 1987. In this paper, news is viewed as a "social reality" constructed by news organization. The main purpose of this paper is to consider the structure and social meaning of the so-called criminal reporting, focusing on the process of news making activities. Firstly, news selection process is examined in view of articulating factors sustaining newsworthiness. Second, news work is analyzed in terms of organizational work and its relationships with the source organization. Finally, function of criminal reporting, that is, visualizing deviance by the media (newspaper) is discussed. Newsworthiness is a measure for selection of news, and the judgement is not only based on the action but also on the attributes and careers of the actor. News story as reality is constructed by news organization based on the definition by the source organization (the Police). In the process of news making, major social norm and value system are used so that the news story makes sense for the readers. Telling the boundary between deviance and control, news on "criminal case" legitimatize the police action and lead the readers to follow the ideology of the order of control.

View full abstract

The emergence or reemergence of informal, decentralized alternatives to American courts for dispute resolution, both civil and criminal, is a highly complex and contradictory phenomenon. This 'informal justice' arose at a time of growing hostility toward professionals and bureaucrats, but it was sponsored or supported by them. Although it is said to be decentralized, its very decentralization is centrally controlled. Although it is said to be informal, it is actually created and constrained by highly formal rules and lines of authority. Informal justice is presented as a community's institution, but the'community' itself exists only in reformer's imagination. Ironically, at a time when actual communities were weakened to lose their traditional informal institutions, state officials, corporate leaders and legal reformers began to quest for a 'community'. As informal justice proliferates, some scholars challenge it. They criticize, among other things, its political character and ask questions about its contradictions, its structural relations to the state, and its meaning in the wider society. They argue that it is unnecessary, it is a failure in its own terms, it is sinister, or it is impossible. These criticisms, however, are true not only for this specific case of informal justice. They could be reproduced almost identically from the late 1970s' evaluations of decarceration, community control and diversion. At the core of their criticisms is the demystification that, on closer examinations, actual processes have turned out to be the opposite of alleged values and even the very key terms. Stranded by such a demystification, some 'critical' criminologists adopted a pessimistic view of any reform programs. At its extreme, misreading Foucault's influential work Discipline and Punish and captured by its images of 'all-surveilling Panopticon' or 'dispersal of discipline', they make up the concept of social control that is nothing more than George Orwell's 1984 or Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Such confusing state is, however, in part a product of the dominant approaches employed in the literature of 'critical' criminology, that is, functionalism, economic reductionism and the so-called 'net-widening' thesis.

View full abstract

In this essay the author aimed mainly at exposing some hidden relations between "politics" and a crime. Studies of a crime and deviance, especially of positive criminology, have not concerned with political elements in the process of "making" of a crime and deviance. They have assumed that a crime and deviance are a priori apolitical phenomena. So the studies have been exclusively concerned with technical problems of how to treat dangerous criminals and deviants. But really there is an inevitable connection between a crime and politics. This issue was discussed by labelling theorists, especially by H. S. Becker, for the first time. So the author reviewed their discussions concerning this issue in brief and then tried to evaluate its implications. I think that it is very important and useful to reread labelling theory as a "Political Science". By doing so, we might be able to expand the concept of "politics" beyond a formal one and discover hidden connections between a crime and politics. In the last place, the author proposed to see social control activities not only in the formal reactions to a crime and deviance, but also in the sphere of our everyday life. For it is necessary to see repressive nature of our everyday life world in order to find political aspects of a crime and deviance.

View full abstract