Crimes of the Powerful Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay evaluating the powerful crimes that effect a large company like the peanut corporation of America....

Description

15010198 Crimes of the Powerful Peanut Corporation of America For many years, critical criminologists have taken an interest into the researching of crimes of the powerful, it is an important research topic for criminologists as these crimes are seen as invisible or hidden and are therefore causing unknown harm to the public. This case study will discuss why and how crimes of the powerful are invisible and the harm that they cause; specifically, this case study will look at the corporate crime committed by the Peanut Corporation of America. This study will discuss what a corporate crime is and why it is invisible and the features that make corporate crimes invisible. The Peanut Corporation of America will be discussed under the previous topics alongside an insight as to what this corporate company is and the crime that is has committed. An evaluation of the victimisation caused by the crime committed by this corporation will be visible in this case study alongside an analysation of the power dynamics of the crime. Crimes of the powerful are committed by people with power. Corporations are classified as crimes of the powerful as they are large corporations that contain a lot of power and can have a major impact on society. A corporation is a large company or group of companies that must be registered under the Companies Act (2006) by law. A corporate crime therefore is an illegal act committed by one of these companies. The Peanut Corporation of America was founded in 1977 in the United States and was a peanut processing organisation until 2009. The company will have been registered under the Companies Act. In 2009 an outbreak of illnesses occurred related to Salmonella Typhimurium due to The Peanut Corporation of America, the “outbreak killed nine people and sickened more than 700 others” (Blinder, A 2015). This harmful event affected 100’s of people and therefore is a powerful crime committed by The Peanut Corporation of America. According to researchers there are 7 features of invisibility that make crimes of the powerful invisible. These seven features can be used to help identify why the crime committed by The Peanut Corporation of America is an invisible crime. The seven features of invisibility include; no knowledge, no statistics, no theory, no research, no control, no politics and no panic. No knowledge correlates with the Peanut Corporation of America due to this feature of invisibility leading to the crime committed being powerful. No knowledge means that “there is little individual or public knowledge that the crime of social harm has been committed” (Davies et al, 2014), this is a consequence of several factors, making the crime unknowledgeable. The first factor that contributes to the issue of no knowledge is an awareness problem, for a crime to become visible victims and the public need to be aware of it. Another factor relating to no knowledge is a normalisation problem, “even where individuals are aware that an act or even has taken place it can be taken for granted as normal rather than criminal” (Davies et al, 1999), thus meaning individuals are unaware it is a criminal activity. The problem of

1

15010198 ideology is another incorporated factor into the issue of no knowledge, this involves the blurring of ideas and effects of the act. The final element of this feature of invisibility is the issue of collusion. This involves instances in which the individual is involved in their own victimisation, thus meaning there is no knowledge as the ‘victim’ may hide the knowledge due to involvement in the event. Knowledge about the invisible crime committed by the Peanut Corporation of America is influenced by the discussed factors. Victims of this corporation alongside other invisible crimes such as fraud may not have any knowledge of the victimisation and therefore are unknown to the fact that they are essentially a victim. “714 persons infected with the outbreak of salmonella Typhimurium have been reported from 46 states” (Centers for Disease, Control and Prevention, 2009). An awareness issue may have occurred from this as the victims that suffered from salmonella may not have seen themselves as ‘victims’, many sufferers were unaware of the reasoning behind their illness and therefore were unaware of the crime. “Salmonella, the name of a group of bacteria, is one of the most common causes of food poisoning in the United States” (Foodsafety.Gov. 2016). Salmonella can be found in many foods and is therefore a commonly known illness that many people suffer from daily, this causing a normalisation problem in relation to the invisibility of the crime committed by the American corporation. If victims are unaware that the illness was from the peanuts they ate provided by the Peanut Corporation of America then the knowledge that is required to distinguish that a crime has been committed is not there, therefore leading too it being invisible. The second feature of invisibility keeping corporate crimes hidden is ‘no statistics’. “Public knowledge about crimes depends to a large extent on official statistics of crime as recorded by the police” (Davies et al, 1999). If there are no statistics about crimes available to the public, then individuals are unable to make the link between corporation and criminal activity. There are numerous reasons as to why there are no statistics, one of these relating to the issue of no knowledge, “ignorance of victimisation often leads to non-recording in official statistics” (McLaughlin and Muncie, 2013). Statistics about cases such as the Peanut Corporation of America are lacking, there are reports and articles about food poisoning cases making people more aware of the harms and impacts salmonella can have on an individual. Although there are reports about such cases, large corporations including the Peanut Corporation are not expected to cause such harm to the public, statistics relating to the company do not show such criminal activity due to the invisibility of it and therefore cases like this with little statistics contribute to the invisibility of a powerful crime. No theory is the third feature of invisibility. Crime has been defined by many theorists, however there is no official definition, this leads to there being a lack of understanding about the term crime, therefore meaning theory cannot be created. The Sage Dictionary of Criminology (2006) makes it clear that what we mean by the

2

15010198 term ‘crime’ is highly contested. If there is no theory about crime then less acknowledgment about what a crime is occurs, leading to invisibility of them. The Peanut Corporation of America caused harm to the public through the sales of contaminated peanuts, questionable theories about crime influence the invisibility of the harm this corporation caused. A lack of understanding about the term may lead to individuals being unknown as to whether the Peanut Corporation of America was committing a crime or not. Features of invisibility make it easier for corporations like the Peanut Corporation of America to get away with committing crimes, another feature of invisibility is no research. “In terms of totality of criminological research output it has been relatively small” (Davies et al, 1999). Many crimes may not be the object or subject of social research, corporate crimes for harms involving food poisoning is an example of this, due to many reasons. Linking back to other features of invisibility no knowledge and no statistics impact on such crimes not being the object of research, therefore leading to there being little information about them. With little or no research about harmful events or crimes deems them invisible, in relation to the Peanut Corporation of America it “was the deadliest salmonella outbreak in recent years and resulted in one of the largest food recalls in American history” (Basu, 2015). Before this case there was very little information, statistics and knowledge about cases involving food poisoning, therefore leading to little or no research into such issues, leading to invisibility of the crime. No control plays a role in the invisibility of social harms and crimes; “the control context focuses on social control mechanisms” (Barak, 2015) Social control mechanisms being “the study of the mechanisms, in the form of patterns of pressure, through which society maintains social order and cohesion” (Oxford Bibliography, 2012). The sixth feature of invisibility is no politics. No politics implicates that some crimes may not be perceived as significant enough to be politically discussed. Political agenda often involve crimes that are more defined through law, therefore meaning that some crimes are overlooked in this category. Such crimes committed like and including the Peanut Corporation of America are not necessarily clearly defined by law and therefore become invisible in relation to politics. The peanut corporation of America knowingly caused harm to the public through the sales of contaminated foods, thus committing a crime, however due to the low status that these crime types have it may not have been important enough to be covered politically, leading to invisibility. The final feature of invisibility is no panic. The media plays a large role in the involvement of this feature due to the coverage they hold in relation to criminal acts. If there is little or no reaction relating to crimes or social harms then the public will be unaware of them, therefore leading to there being no panic or alarm about them. For panic to occur those involved will be labelled as the ‘folk devil’ and moral panic

3

15010198 should occur, however without this there is little evidence of the crime being an issue, consequently causing invisibility. Any acknowledgement about the crime committed by the Peanut Corporation of America was established after it had caused substantial harm to the public, due to this there was little moral panic throughout, leading to invisibility of the crime. No panic influences invisibility in relation to corporate crime like the one committed by the Peanut Corporation of America. Invisible crimes committed by corporations involve power dynamics, this involves the power and the scale of the crime dependent on those involved. Power dynamics involves “decision making, influence tactics, resistance to change, management of change, and effects of change processes in organisations” (Herriot, 1998), all of which made or influenced by the parties involved in the organisation. In relation to the Peanut Corporation of America and their criminal activity harming individuals through the sale of contaminated peanuts several parties were involved in the crime and the invisibility of it. The three main parties involved in the event previously worked with the company before it was shut down in 2009 due to the outbreak and have been convicted and sentenced to prison because of the effects that this harmful event had on the public and its victims. “Former Peanut Corporation of America Owner Stewart Parnell was sentenced to 28 years in prison” (McCoy, K. USA Today 2015). The former executive’s brother was also convicted to 20 years in prison alongside Mary Wilkerson, the former quality control manager who was convicted on obstruction in the tragedy and sentenced to 5 years. Investigators found that lab tests confirmed food contained salmonella; uncovered emails proved that the corporation shipped these products to the companies regardless of knowing about this therefore committing a crime. Thus, being an invisible crime committed by a powerful corporation. The power dynamics of this crime helped to keep the event invisible and hidden leading to more damage being done. Due to power and individuals within society it can often be easy to keep corporate crimes hidden and invisible, alongside other reasons. There is very little research in relation to corporate crimes making it more difficult for society know about and be aware of them. Many victims are unaware they are being victimised or may be involved with the crime themselves and therefore do not report it. It may also occur that corporate crimes are not actually prosecuted, “corporate criminal cases present prosecutors with many complex factors to consider and weigh when deciding to go ahead with charges against a corporation” (Hartley, 2008). Complex factors may include who is responsible, evidence, lack of knowledge and many others making it difficult for corporate crimes and those involved to be prosecuted, therefore leading to corporate crimes staying hidden. Corporate crimes are highly powerful and due to the power, they hold this enables them to stay hidden and not be found out, therefore making it easier for organisations to commit crimes without anyone knowing.

4

15010198 The outbreak of the contaminated peanuts that were sold by the Peanut Corporation of America meant that a lot of people were victimized. The outbreak caused nine deaths and “another 714 people in 46 states were sickened, some critically.” (Basu, 2015). The outbreak victimised many people, all of which were not reimbursed for their victimisation. “Former Peanut Corporation of America owner Stewart Parnell and three co-defendants were spared by the judge’s from paying restitution to corporate customers and the families of hundreds” (CBS Minnesota, 2016). The victimization that the public suffered due to this corporate crime affected many people’s lives, not only those that became ill but their families and friends also. A lot of suffering has occurred for the families of the nine people that died due to the outbreak and therefore these people are victims of the criminal activity also. Some people have different outlooks on what a victim is or who is a victim, victim precipitation is one theory that has been used to classify what a victim is. Victim precipitation is part of Hans Von Hentig’s work and has since been covered by many others. “Sparks (1982) developed a six-fold typology of victim proneness: Precipitation, Facilitation, Vulnerability, Opportunity, Attractiveness, Impunity” (Newburn, 2007). Precipitation involves participation of the victim in their own victimisation, facilitation involves putting oneself at risk of crime intentionally, vulnerability involves physical characteristics influencing risk, opportunity relates to reducing the risk, attractiveness links the display of fortune one may hold and impunity involves one being an easy target to victimise. These six typologies are what Sparks says is part of victim proneness and who a victim is. Some may say that the victims of the salmonella outbreak may involve victim precipitation as facilitation involve putting themselves at risk, thus being through eating the peanuts sold by the Peanut Corporation of America. However due to the nature of the crime and the invisibility of it may mean that the victims were unaware of their victimisation even after they were affected. In conclusion, it has been found that the seven features of invisibility helps to explain why the crime committed by the Peanut Corporation of America and makes it easier to understand the invisibility of it in relation to corporate crimes. The seven features of invisibility all correlate together to make aware how crimes are invisible and the characteristics of it. Power is a main factor that plays a large influence in the invisibility of corporate crime; managers, executives, owners etc. all play a role in their organisations crime as they hold power and impact on the invisibility of the crime. The Peanut Corporation of America kept their invisibility due to the owner and other members hiding what they were doing, therefore being in power is a factor influencing invisible crimes. Overall the study has found that corporate crimes and crimes of the powerful can be hidden and made invisible to cover up crimes committed.

5

15010198 Word Count: 2539 References Barak, G. (2015) The Routledge International Handbook of Crimes of the Powerful. Oxon. Routledge. Blinder, A (2015) Georgia: 28 Year Sentence in Tainted Peanut Case. The New York Times. Available at: www.nytimes.com (Accessed on 02-11-2015) Basu, M. (2015). 28 years for salmonella: Peanut exec gets groundbreaking sentence. CNN. [online]. Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/21/us/salmonella-peanut-exec-sentenced/ (Accessed on: 29-11-2016) Basu, M. (2015) For first time, company owner faces life sentence for food poisoning outbreak. CNN. [online]. Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/20/us/peanutbutter-salmonella-trial/ (Accessed on 29-12-2016) CBS Minnesota. (2016). Fmr. Peanut Exec. Won’t Have to Pay Salmonella Victims. The Association Press. [online] Available at: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/04/07/peanut-exec-no-payment-salmonellavictims/ (Accessed on: 29-12-2016) Carmichael, J. (2012). Social Control. Oxford Bibliography. Available at: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756384/obo9780199756384-0048.xml (Accessed on: 11-12-2016) Centers for Disease, Control and Prevention. (2009). ‘Multistate Outbreak of Salmonella Typhirimium Infections Linked to Peanut Butter’. Davies P, Francis P, Jupp, V. (1999). Invisible Crimes, their victims and their regulation. United States of America. St Martins Press. Davies, P, Fancis, P, Wyatt, T. (2014). Invisible Crimes and Social Harms. Hampshire. Palgrave McMillan UK. Foodsafety.Gov. (2016). Salmonella, Foodsafety.gov. [online]. Available at: https://www.foodsafety.gov/poisoning/causes/bacteriaviruses/salmonella/ (Accessed on: 22-11-2016) Hartley, R. (2008). ‘Corporate Crime’. United States of America. ABC-CLIO. Herriot, P. (1998) ‘Europeam Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Power Dynamics and Organization Change’. Vol. 7. No 2. McCoy. K (2015) Peanut exec in salmonella case gets 28 years. USA TODAY. [online]. Available at: www.usatoday.com (Accessed on 02-11-2016)

6

15010198 McLaughlin, E and Muncie, J. (2013). The Sage Dictionary of Criminology. 2nd edn. London. Sage Publication. McLaughlin, E and Muncie, J. (2013). The Sage Dictionary of Criminology. 3rd edn. London. Sage Publication. Newburn, T. (2007). ‘Criminology’. Oxfordshire, Willian Publishing.

7...