Another policy effort that has resulted from labeling theory is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2012 change to United States federal guidelines, which now require employers to make individual assessments to consider the type of crime and the age of the criminal record, the relevance of the offense to the job, and evidence of good conduct and rehabilitation when reviewing applications (Denver et al., 2017). This is meant to give offenders a better chance with re-entry, helping both offenders and those they encounter to recognize that people are more than their labels. Finally, in 2016, the United States Department of Justice implemented a policy change that requires person-first language when describing offenders: instead of “convicted felon,” one would say “person with a felony conviction” (Denver et al., 2017). This change in language is meant to reduce the chance of a label sticking to an individual. As history has shown, labels often do not stick to powerful offenders (Gottschalk, 2016). This is where theories regarding crimes of the powerful come into play.

Crimes of the Powerful

​Background

Crimes of the powerful are ill-defined, as the powerful are the ones who define crimes and decide punishments, and they are not likely to punish themselves or their cohorts. Theorists have tried to conceptualize crimes of the powerful through anomie (normless corporations) and control (general theory of crime) (Ruggiero, 2015). Sutherland has been frequently cited for his definition of crimes of the powerful that considers crime as a norm infraction:

The essential characteristic of crime is that it is a behavior w