Final answer:
Tombs & Whyte criticize fines for corporate crime because they are often not significant enough to deter future misbehavior and perpetuate a system where those with financial resources can avoid more severe punishment, highlighting discrepancies in how crime and social class interact.
Step-by-step explanation:
Tombs & Whyte critique the use of fines for corporate crime based on the argument that fines often fail to provide an adequate deterrent to corporations and can be viewed simply as a cost of doing business.
The vast international power wielded by large corporations can sometimes allow them to manipulate legal outcomes, thereby diminishing the impact of monetary fines on their operations.
In many cases, corporate crimes can lead to significant social harm, as seen through examples like the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, which led to immense financial losses far exceeding those of common crimes.
The use of fines is criticized due to the negligible effect they have on deterring future illicit behavior, and the way in which they may perpetuate unequal treatment within the justice system,
where wealthy individuals and corporations can essentially buy their way out of more severe consequences, thereby exacerbating issues related to crime and social class.