Crime prevention in terms of criminal intent criteria in white-collar crime. A propositional analysis
| Pages | 838-844 |
| Date | 02 July 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-05-2017-0051 |
| Published date | 02 July 2018 |
| Author | Tage Alalehto |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & Finance,Financial risk/company failure,Financial crime |
Crime prevention in terms of
criminal intent criteria in
white-collar crime
A propositional analysis
Tage Alalehto
Department of Sociology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –In the field of crime prevention there are severaltheoretical approaches explaining why crime
occurs and how to prevent it.Three of them –routine activity theory, crime pattern theory and the theory of
crime-as-choice –are logicallytested in this work. The point of departure is to test if the theories are logical
consistent and logical valid, irrespective of whether the criterion for criminal intent is changed from direct
intentionto negligence.
Design/methodology/approach –The issues willbe explored in a logical structure by a first-orderlogic
propositionalanalysis.
Findings –The analysis shows thatall three theories are logical consistent, but only routine activitytheory
is logical valid. The conclusionis that crime prevention should in general assume that routineactivity theory
is the legitimate theory and that socialprevention as a prevention strategy is logically unnecessary to adopt
because it doesnot matter whether the offender is motivated (direct intention)or not (negligence).
Practical implications –It does not really matter if the authors theoreticallytreat white-collar offenders
as motivated, because if they have committedan actus reus, they are an offender according to the objective
requisites. This means that the best strategies to prevent a potential white-collar criminal are situational
prevention, i.e. complicate theiraccess to money, where it becomes irrelevant if the potential offender has a
mens rea or not. Whatcounts is the prevention of actus reus by a potential offender.
Originality/value –As far as I know, no one has previously investigated the logical consistencyand/or
logical validityof routine activity theory, crime pattern theory and the theory of crime-as-choiceas theories of
crime prevention.
Keywords White-collar crime, Crime prevention, Propositional logic
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In the field of crime prevention theory, there are two well-known approaches: routine
activity theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979) and crime pattern theory (Brantingham and
Brantingham, 1993). To thesewe can add a new theoretical approach: the theory of crime-as-
choice (Shover et al., 2012). All three theories claim to, and have been applied to, explain
criminality in general and white-collar crime specifically (Benson et al.,2009;Felson and
Boba, 2009;Shoverand Hochstetler, 2006). Along with this claim goes the capabilityto make
policy statements on how to prevent criminality,specifically white-collar criminality.
A common general trait for thethree approaches is the existence of a motivated offender,
a suitable target and a lack of capable guardians. If these three factors are present in a
situation (whatever it is), the situation is defined as a criminal opportunity. This common
trait of criminal opportunity leads to another common presupposition by the three
approaches. The motivated offender is intentional in his act, i.e. the offender has a direct
JFC
25,3
838
Journalof Financial Crime
Vol.25 No. 3, 2018
pp. 838-844
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/JFC-05-2017-0051
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-0790.htm
To continue reading
Request your trial