Experts have evaluated several offenders and posit that three factors are associated with internal crimes. These are motivations, opportunity and rationalizations for committing theft. Other people further shed more light on the theory of differential association to explain that criminal behavior is learned through interaction with others and a person commits a crime because of an excess of situations that are favorable to violations of law over situations that are unfavorable to the violation of laws. This approach has implications in the workplace where superiors and colleagues in a company are probably more important in detecting crime than other individuals.
This has affected corporations who have trained some of its brightest young people to become dishonest”. Management should set good examples for socialization of employees at all levels to reduce incidents of theft. A complicating factor in staff theft is that managers are often reluctant to believe that their employees would steal from them. According psychologists, “there is a relationship between theft and trust because the one you trust the least will steal the least and the one trust the more will steal even more. Employees who are in a better position to steal large sums of money from business usually steal the most before being detected because they are the most trusted. Sometimes managers pity an employee who steals and in most cases the thief is given another chance.
Although most cheating is done for financial gains, employees sometime falsify reports or documents for creating a favorable impression from their superiors and colleagues. They usually try to justify their deeds by thinking that the company could well afford what they had misappropriated. The three most common things for employee dishonesty is: perceived pressure, perceived opportunity and rationalization of their actions One way that this issue can be adequately addressed is by deterring would be criminals from committing such crimes. Regulations/laws must be made tougher so that these criminals do not get away with a slap on the wrist.
When fines are imposed upon such offenders, they pay off the fines with the money that they have embezzled without any personal loss of money or freedom. If they knew that they faced the loss of freedom for a considerable amount of time and faced other realistic penalties they would think twice before taking money that does not legally belong to them. Rules must support deterrence and not be mere procedures to fulfill legal requirements. When most people face the reality of substantial measures strictly enforced they might be prevented from wrong doing. The suggestion here is to try deterrence because regulations have not appropriately addressed the problem.