Traditional Crime vs. Corporate Crime: A Comparative Risk Discourse Analysis

Abstract

With the knowledge that risk has become an omnipresent concept used to understand various social problems, this study aims to fill a perceived gap in literature by investigating the way in which risk discourse is applied to understand different categories of crime, namely traditional crime and corporate crime. It is hypothesized that risk logic is heavily applied to the understanding of traditional crime, with minimal attribution to conversations surrounding corporate crime. The pervasiveness of risk as a technique or tactic of government renders the study of its application to different types of crime an important addition to the existing risk literature. Using the method of a comparative content analysis, the parallels and discrepancies between the ways in which risk is used to discuss traditional and corporate crime by Canadian federal criminal justice organizations are explored. The results indicate a lack of focus on risk logic with respect to corporate crime, but demonstrate that risk discourse is perhaps not altogether absent from corporate crime discussions.