Diverse Reactions to White Collar Crime

White Collar Crime can affect people in many different ways. People do not all react the same way in a crime situation. All reactions are possible and normal. Most people, after being victims of a crime, feel very confused and unbalanced. The Criminal-victim relationship, places this as a preponderant and decisive element in the realization of the crime, in which, conscious or not, cooperates, causes or conspires in the occurrence of the crime, the notion of victim and victimization surpasses comprehensive conception, not being restricted to the victim of crime.

The victim is usually targeted because of his personality, his psychological state, his moral and cultural characteristics, the relationship with the criminal and other conditions make the victim collaborate to carry out the crime.

But these relationships reach significant complexities, as we cross the victim’s interests in their purely individual sense and begin to analyze the victim in a collective meaning. The victims usually are unaware that a crime has taken place and when they find out may feel intimidated and feel less victimized.

Victims of white-collar crime have attracted less attention than victims of predatory crime, because crime has an image of someone who suffered physical damage such as, rape, robbery, murder, etc. Many believe that victims of white collar crime have contributed to the crime by allowing it to happen. I am of the belief that not all victims but some do share culpability of the crime.

In certain cases, the victim is decisive in causing the harmful result that affects him and, with that, I mean that this result may not always, in the vast majority of occasions, be attributed to the agent.

Get quality help now

RhizMan

Verified

Proficient in: Crime

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

It is known that today’s society is viewed under the optimum of risk. The postmodern social spirit turned to the feeling of fear and insecurity caused by the technical advances generated in economic activities. The then existing conflict between the distribution of goods and income, typical of the production society, began to be overcome by the existing conflict between the distribution of risks created by man himself.

This new society, permeated by the feeling of insecurity, presents new demands to criminal law and brings with it new definitions about the very functions of criminal law. The creation of risks in a society characterized by intense communication and connection between the subjects (globalization and integration) makes the security of legal assets highly dependent on positive behaviors adopted by subjects other than the individual to be affected – although from him also depend. Criminal law, therefore, takes on the role of a great risk manager. In other words, not forgetting the constant presence of risks, but, aware of this, he prefers to impose limits on their production, imposing standards of behavior that although risky are permitted and socially accepted, because preventing the creation of risks is impossible in current terms. It is no wonder that the law is increasingly involved in activities considered to be at risk, tolerating certain levels of dangerous action, but rejecting others.

Risk is an integral part of life in society. To renounce risk, in fact, is also to renounce modern society itself. However, what differentiates risk behavior indifferent to criminal law from that which has relevance is precisely the nature of the risk assumed – whether allowed or not. When there is specific regulation about the dangerous activity, the permitted risk will be that which is molded into the narrow normative limits, passing to the sphere of the prohibited when it exceeds them. The victim has his own protection scope and his self-placing in a dangerous situation can lead to the atypical behavior of the third party, even if the latter increases the risk. This is precisely because the holder of the legal good also has obligations to himself and if he chooses to put himself in a situation of danger contrary to the rules of conduct, the burden of his risky action cannot exceed it