Dealing with these crimes in the justice system is therefore just as ambiguous as theorizing and conceptualizing. However, some notable contributions have been made in the 20th century, including the expansion of federal criminal law and reach of federal fraud statutes (Anello & Glaser, 2016). The Second Circuit has contributed to the development of white collar jurisprudence over the last century, finally allowing for national conversations, court decisions, law, practice, procedure, and punishment of white collar crimes (Anello & Glaser, 2016).

Contributions from empirical research have also led to the creation of white collar crime units, as well as more grant money and publicly available systemic data for in-depth research (Reurink, 2016). Finally, criminological contributions have brought about discussion of the separation between individual and group rights (Michalowski, 1979; Reurink, 2016). For white collar offenders, this could make prosecutions and conceptualization much clearer, leading to better research and outcomes to tackle this problem.

Conclusion

No crime exists until someone in power says that something is a crime. With regards to labeling and white collar crimes, the law is selective. Criminal law targets selectively and unequally, promoting and protecting white collar crimes and disproportionally criminalizing and stigmatizing drug offenses and other crimes by ordinary citizens (Carrington & Hogg, 2002). The capitalist system tends to favor the privileged and demonize the oppressed. Contributions to both criminology and criminal justice are promising, showing a revitalized interest in labeling theory and crimes of the powerful. Critical criminology has opened the door for national dialogue and deeper analysis into the causes and consequences of crimes within these power structures. Further empirical research is needed on both topics to continue the discussion and find some solutions to these power imbalances in the criminal justice system.