The five readings in this last part are occupied with questions concerning the proper definition of white-collar crime. They are apt to strike a posture of disingenuous innocence, while vigorously pursuing their respective ends, as if their authors cannot quite understand how it is that others are unable to comprehend the self-evident positions that they put forward. As background regarding the scope and definition of white-collar crime, the readings come to grips with common elements to an unusual degree and they lay out carefully for the reader diverse polemical considerations involved in the study of white-collar crime.
It is notable that the authors are usually members of either the legal profession or the sociological discipline, with one foot firmly planted in their area of major concentration and the other less firmly rooted in or seeking out the second area. In particular, the authors are men conversant to a noteworthy degree with two fields of knowledge who tend to snipe at members of one with specialized information and insights from the other.
The Sutherland-Tappan debate opens the section. Sutherland's knowledge of law was not formidable, but he had enough command of it to offer