ees another act with relative impunity in the context of corporate crime, white collar crime, or alcohol related driving offenses, that person may well be tempted to their own form of criminal deviancy, and their choices to commit some criminal behavior of their own choosing may be more understandable in this context (Schlesinger, 1991, pp. 397 420; Benson and Moore, 1992, pp. 251 272; Corbett and Simon, 1992, pp. 537 549; Mintz, 1992, pp. 72 76).
Criminologists have long associated the commission of crime with the opportunity for the commission of such acts (Kennedy, 1991, pp. 56 60). In the 1990s, however, there is a stronger tendency on the part of an ever greater proportion of the population to engage in any activity, criminal or not, that provide them with some degree of pleasure when the opportunity presents itself (Barlow, 1991, pp. 229 242). A major reason that an ever growing proportion of the population appears to be findings criminal behavior an acceptable alternative to non criminal behavior is the continuing socialization of criminal deviancy (McCord, 1991, pp. 211 228). More and more people are coming to the view that behavior termed criminally deviant is not necessarily socially unacceptable (The Economist, 1991, p. 32).
Increasingly, attempts are being made to link criminal deviancy with increased drug use in society (Harrison, 1992, pp. 203 245). Most certainly, drug use and criminal behavior frequently accompany one another. Criminal behavior existed prior to increasing drug use, however, and there is little reason to really expect criminal deviancy to disappear if the drug problem is suddenly controlled. Further, the high correlation between drug use and criminal behavior exists because white collar crime and corporate crime are all too often excluded from the definition of criminal behavior.
The external frame of reference applied to evaluate criminal deviancy in the United States is the societal appr...