Sutherland’s definition includes corporations as recidivist offenders, with privilege instigating the learning processes that lead to crime (Ruggiero, 2015).

​Despite the difficulties and ambiguities in its conception and definition, crimes of the powerful have merit in considering structural power theories of crime. Hagan and Thio assert that those with power and privilege have stronger motivations, more opportunities, and weaker social controls, and are therefore more likely to commit crime (Friedrichs, 2010). Other advantages of theories of crimes of the powerful include explanations of how those in power get away with crimes, how certain acts are or are not considered criminal, and the importance of national conversation and punishments when dealing with these crimes (Anello & Glaser, 2016; Olejarz, 2016).
​Aside from the definitional and conceptual issues, there are a few other disadvantages to these theories as well. The ambiguity of definitions of these crimes has made this topic difficult to study empirically (Nash, 2017). The definitions that are in place do not really make a distinction between crimes of the individual and crimes of the organization as a whole (Maguire et al., 1994; Reurink, 2016). Penalties and theories of control do not apply to these crimes like they do to others, since one cannot imprison a corporation (Gottschalk, 2016). Finally, deterrence and punishment rely on the idea that people are ashamed of crime, and research shows that powerful offenders typically do not feel shame for their offenses as ordinary citizens might (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2002).