What did Pearce (1976) argue about public perceptions of corporate crime?

Pearce's argument regarding public perceptions of corporate crime emphasizes that it is often viewed as less frequent than other types of crime, such as street crime. He highlights the ways in which corporate crime can be downplayed or overlooked by society and the media, contributing to the perception that it is not as common or as serious as other forms of crime. Pearce points out that this perception exists despite the significant harm and impact corporate crime can have on individuals and society at large.

The correct choice underscores the tendency for people to underestimate the frequency and prevalence of corporate crimes because they often occur within complex corporate structures and may not have immediate visible consequences.

In contrast, some individuals might see corporate crime as less severe compared to street crime, leading to a relative dismissal of its significance. This perception can contribute to a societal blind spot regarding serious issues related to corporate misconduct, which is often not as visible as street crime. Consequently, the legal system may not prioritize corporate crime to the same extent as more evident forms of criminal activity, further reinforcing the notion that corporate wrongdoing is infrequent or less concerning. Understanding Pearce's perspective necessitates recognizing how societal perceptions shape the response to different types of crime.