Table Of ContentCRIMIML VIOLATION OF FINANCIAL TRUST
BY
DOHALD M Y CRESSEY
<>
Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate Schoo
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy,
in the Department of Sociology
Indiana University
May 1950
ProQuest Number: 10295242
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest.
ProQuest 10295242
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
Accepted by the faculty of the Graduate School of
Indiana University as fulfilling the thesis requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Director of Thesis
Doctorate Committee: ________ Chairman
i i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The writer wishes to express his appreciation of
the assistance given him by Dr. Edwin H. Sutherland, by
Mr. Lloyd E. Ohlin and other members of the staff at the
Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet, and by Dave,
George, Jack, and Wink.
i i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION...................... 1
The Sociological Context
Review of the Literature
II. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE.......... 27
Definition of the behavior studied
and identification of subjects
Formulation of Hypotheses
The Scope of the Generalization
III. THE ROLE OF THE NON-SHAREABLE PROBLEM
IN TRUST VIOLATION............... 56
Summary and Conclusions
IV. THE "OPPORTUNITY" TO VIOLATE POSITIONS
OF FINANCIAL TRUST............... 100
Summary and Conclusions
V. THE USE AND ACQUISITION OF
RATIONALIZATIONS BY TRUST VIOLATORS 126
Independent Busine s smen
Trusted Employees
Absconders
Acquisition of Rationalizations
Summary and Conclusions
VI. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE THEORY 204
Selection of the Crime by Violators
Personal Traits of Violators
Social Characteristics of Violators
Prevention and Recidivism
Fluctuations in Trust Violation Rates
Conclusion
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................... 226
iv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this study is the isolation and
definition of the processes involved in violating, in a
criminal manner, positions of financial trust which have
been accepted in good faith. The reported behavior of
trust violators prior to the time of the defalcation, at
the time of the defalcation, and after the defalcation is
investigated in order to provide a theoretical account of
such behavior. The central problem is to account for the
differential behavior indicated by the fact that some
persons in a position of trust violate that trust, whereas
other persons, or even the same person at a different time,
in identical or similar positions do not so violate it.
The approach to this problem is largely situational or
"systematic’1 rather than historical or "genetic." A major
related problem is that of accounting for the presence in
individual trust violators of the events which make up the
sequence which differentiates them from non-trust violators.
This problem is approached genetically, in terms of the life
experience of the person. Thus, the central problem is
that of determining whether a definable sequence of events
-1-
2
is always present when criminal trust violation is present
and never present when trust violation is absent, and the
correlated problem is that of explaining genetically the
presence or absence of those events. Both are problems
of causation.
These two problems are closely related since the
events present in the per son-situation complex at the time
when trust violation occurs cannot be entirely separated
from the prior life experiences of the trust violator.
While a person may define a situation in such a manner
that criminal behavior is the inevitable result, his past
experiences will for the most part determine the ways in
which he defines situations. A specific type of reaction
to a specific situation may be necessary for trust
violation and if such a reaction is present, trust
violation may be explained in terms of it. However, the
i
reaction itself must be explained genetically.
Differences in the systematic and historical
(genetic)approaches have been pointed out in detail by
Kurt Lewin whose psychological system has been developed
with consideration for the view that scientific concepts
^For a discussion of these two types of explanation
in criminology, see E. H. Sutherland, Principles of
Criminology, New York, 19^7, P* 5.
3
of causation must not be of the historical kind (attri
buting present effects to past causes) but must be concerned
solely with relationships at the present moment (systematic
causation). The aim in studies of systematic causation is
"to find general laws which would be stated in terms of
interrelationships among a number of facts (either observed
directly or inferred) that exist at the same time.1’ In
discussing the Aristotelean and Galilean modes of thought,
Lewin comments:
It was typical of the Aristotelean way of thinking
not to distinguish between historical and systematic
questions. The result was that one took past or
future facts as causes of present events. In
opposition to this assumption we shall here strongly
defend the thesis that neither the past nor the
future influences psychological facts but only the
present situation can influence present events.
This thesis is a direct consequence of the principle
that only what concretely exists can have effects.
Since neither the past nor the future exists at ~
the present It cannot have effects at the present.^
This latter thesis is typical of the Galilean mode of
thought, the perspective from which our first problem is
approached.
However, even Lewin does not deny that genetic
influences act on the individual; his whole system might
be considered as a conceptual scheme for representing the
p
R. Leeper, Lewin1s Topological and Vector Psychology,
a Digest and Critique. Eugene, Oregon, 1943, p. 79•
^Kurt Lewin, A Dynamic Theory of Personality, New
York, 1935, PP. 34-35*
4
end results of genetic determinations. His position simply
is that we must first develop systematic constructs before
we work to establish the genetic laws. He says in another
place, for example, that "there should be a Systematic1
explanation besides the 'historical* one, namely an
explanation of how these different parts and properties can
exist within one concrete whole. As in psychology, in
sociology both the historical and the systematic question
'why* is important, and neither question is to be finally
solved without the other. Our second problem is approached
from this historical or genetic perspective.
The research on these problems is conducted within
the general framework of the differential association theory
of criminal behavior.5 According to this theory, which is
a genetic explanation, persons acquire patterns of criminal
behavior in the same way they acquire patterns of lawful
behavior— through learning in interaction with other
persons. The contents of the patterns presented in
association with criminal behavior differ from the contents
presented in association with lawful behavior, but the
process is the same in both instances. Specifically, the
"direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions
^Kurt Lewin, "Some Social and Psychological
Differences Between the United States and Germany, "
Character and Personality, 4:265-293, June, 1936.
^E. H. Sutherland, op. cit., pp. 6-9*
5
of legal codes as favorable or ■unfavorable,” the learning
Including both the techniques of committing the crime and
"the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations
and attitudes." The ratio between definitions favorable to
law violation and definitions unfavorable to law violation
determines whether or not a person becomes criminal. This
is the principle of differential association. "A person
becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions
favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable
to violation of law,” but associations may vary also in
frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
Stated in the framework of this theory, our first
problem involves the definition and delimitation of the
social and psychological mechanisms by which an assumed
"excess" of contacts with definitions favorable to
violation of law are transformed into criminal violation
of financial trust. If such contacts result in the learning
of "motives, drives, rationalizations and attitudes," the
specific problem becomes one of describing the process by
which these and other mechanisms operate to produce trust
violation. Hypotheses as to the nature of this process were
formulated progressively, and they will be described in the
next chapter.
The second problem, stated in the framework of the
differential association theory, involves the question of
whether associations with criminal behavior patterns are
