The Case Of Erik Fresen

Erik Fresen, a legislator who won the election for the Florida House of Representatives in 2008 and served for 8 years, left office due to term limits (Weaver & Mazzei, 2017). Also, along with serving as a legislator, he had a few other incomes from other companies such as, Civica an architecture design firm and Neighborhood Strategies, a land-use consulting firm (Weaver & Mazzei, 2017). However, Fresen, began committing a white-collar crime before entering office, such as tax evasion and failure to report his annual income. According to the article, Fresen failed to file his 2011 tax return and failed to report his annual income for 9 years (Weaver & Mazzei, 2017). Upon sentencing, the court asked Fresen if he had a reason in why he committed
Given the fact that Fresen admitted his guilt in committing a crime, it shows a rational, human being acknowledging their mistakes. Another theoretical action can be the positivist theory, since he did not explain why he committed this crime, although he may know himself and did not want to expose it. Usually the penalization in this crime, follows intense punishments such as, prison or jail time, probation, or house arrest. These punishments depend upon the severity of the act and although prison punishment normally deters others to commit this crime, it costs us taxpayers to maintain them in a prison cell. Fresen’s final sentence included 60 days in jail, serving 15 days in jail per month for four months, making his sentence intermittent to earn an income and pay his tax penalties (Mazzei, 2017). Following his 60 days in jail, Fresen will serve one year of probation (Mazzei, 2017). The Differential Association theory, as described in the book, behavior itself and its process operating to create a criminal behavior (Williams III & McShane,
The outcome that came with committing such an arrogant crime, convinced Fresen to become egotistical and live this lifestyle without acknowledging the consequences. Approaching different ways of earning a high income through different companies and not report them, to receive the most possible, so he and his family can enjoy life based on fraud and evasion. Another perspective on Fresen’s case, it can also refer to The Classical School theory because he was rational enough to understand that committing this crime and admitting to it on his own free will would work best in his favor. Having knowledge that there is a risk of being caught, Fresen still took the opportunity to earn and support his family as much as possible and provide them with the best lifestyle he can offer. Although Fresen was responsible in admitting to the crime they charged him with, the consequences relied on punishments that involved jail time and probation. The Classical School theory had the concept of deterrence and rationality to prevent repetition of crimes (Williams III & McShane,