Contemporary Issues in CJ

White-collar crimes do not typically get as much exposure when compared to other crimes because whitecollar crimes are harder to recognize and sometimes hard to understand. Conventional crimes such as
rape, robbery, and homicide are much easier to understand and appreciate what the consequences of
those crimes are. For example, tax fraud is different, complicated, dynamic it and often involves a different
demographic group than what conventional crime has. White-collar offenders tend to be older, better off,
more educated, and—virtually by definition—are more likely to be gainfully employed in a legitimate
occupation that conventional crime offenders (Friederichs, 2010; Payne, 2013).
Money and political power play a role not only in conventional crimes but even more so in white-collar
crimes. Wealth and political connections most definitely make a difference when a person is facing criminal
charges, e.g., Martha Stewart, Bernie Madoff, and Dennis Kozlowski.
It is often difficult for judges when deciding on sentencing for convicted white-collar crime offenders
because usually, the offenders have no criminal history. White-collar crimes are also far from being
victimless crimes. They may not be violent in nature, but they certainly have a victim, usually many victims.
Bernie Madoff is one of the most commonly recognized names when it comes to white-collar criminals.
Madoff pled guilty to securities fraud as well as investment advisor fraud. There were eleven felony counts.
Madoff lost over fifty billion dollars of investor’s money who trusted him; there were numerous victims. The
victims are often financially affected to a great degree, and some victims have their life savings taken
(Haury, 2020). In this case, I do believe that Madoff was sentenced appropriately. Madoff was sentenced to
a 150-year life sentence in federal prison.

Sample Solution

troduced as he enters through an unlocked door in the Helmer’s household “Now the door is pushed ajar, and Krogstad appears.” (130). Like Sandip, Krogstad’s arrival is sudden and unforeseen. By focusing on the unlocked door, it is clear to see that the bourgeoise household is defenceless in keeping intruders out. It is a facade of security that is easily compromised. Furthermore, Krogstad’s silent observation of Nora’s game with her children “what shall we play? Hide and seek?” (129) provides an unsettling sense of voyeurism as he intrudes on an emphatically private moment. This casts Nora’s household from its preconceived notions of seclusion and exposes it to be scrutinized by the outside world. Nicholas Grene extends this line of thought by stating that “the revolutionary innovation of Ibsen’s A Doll’s House was to turn that scene of the glass-walled conservatory the other way around, to put the audience of the play in the position of the townspeople, gazing in at the middle-class marital home.” (16). Grene’s point is a significant one as it illuminates the importance of staging in corroding the distinct lines between the interior and exterior world. The set of the bourgeoise household may be constructed to appear superficially private but it is, in fact, a stage. This means that it is designed for the sole purpose of being gazed upon and dissected. In this sense, there is a definitive and noticeable breach between the domestic household and the external world as the audience observes the bourgeoise home. This, Branislav Jakovljevic posits, means that “the reality of the stage is always measured against the truth of the outside world.” (432). In other words, the facade of the ideal household is exposed by means of the audience witnessing its gradual undoing. But the inhabitants of outside world are not embodied solely by the audience. Instead, they can also be seen in Krogstad’s letter which is an artefact of the outside world. The letter is inimitable proof of Nora’s fraud, which makes it a distinctly financial object. This links closely to ideas of capitalism and financial security that are already deeply rooted in the household. Similar to Krogstad’s first appearance, the letter arrives through the front door and sits, out of reach, in the letterbox “There it is. – Torvald, Torvald – we’re beyond rescue now!” (159). Nora’s inability to access the letter is indicative the fact that her household is longer a private space. It is open to the influences of the outside world and cannot be shielded from them. As a result, Nora is forced to face the reality of her deception, knowing that resistance is futile. The futility of Nora’s predicament is significant as it points towards the irrevocable change that the household has undergone. It is utterly compromised by the pressures of debt and capital and, despite Nora’s best efforts, it cannot be concealed. In this sense, the contamination of the household by outside forces is an inevitable process of change that cannot be placated.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.