How many times a week do you break the law? And do you see anything wrong with it? Fionola Meredithreports on the casual crime wave.
The moral compass of the middle classes, once held up as an unimpeachably reliable guide to the ethical labyrinth of modern life, has gone haywire. A new report by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies in London claims that homeowners aged 25 or over, with healthy disposable incomes, are showing an unprecedented contempt for the law.
Nearly two thirds of consumers surveyed confessed to committing a range of offences against business, government and their employers. These "everyday crimes" included paying cash in hand to avoid taxation, nicking items from work, keeping money when given too much change and not revealing faults when selling second-hand items.
The authors of the report, Prof Susanne Karstedt and Dr Stephen Farrall, aren't at all impressed with the shenanigans of the affluent, diagnosing a climate of moral cynicism and rampant self-interest, where dog-eat-dog is the dominant approach to life.
Apparently, some people even consider law-breaking a form of revolt, a sneaky way to get their own back on big business. The report argues: "Consumers are now exercised by value for money, mis-selling, hidden charges and inaccurate product descriptions. They resist this, and hit back by inflating insurance claims as a reaction against small-print rules or overpriced premiums; they retreat into a shadow economy where they pay cash-in-hand to circumvent tax and social security laws".
Ivana Bacik, Reid professor of criminal law, criminology and penology at Trinity College Dublin, points out that "there is a reluctance by those in power to name the crimes they are inclined to commit". But is it really so wrong to take home a few packs of paperclips from work? After all, it's hardly a hardcore offence, is it? Or is that just another form of middle-class denial?
Prof Ian O'Donnell, director of the Institute of Criminology at University College Dublin, says: "Well, it's a question of degree. We tend to think that crime is carried out by others rather than ourselves, and that what we consider real crimes are the kind of activities policed by the Garda. But crime is a function of opportunity: for it to take place, all you need is a motivated offender, a suitable target or victim, and the absence of guardians." By that definition, even the stealthy paperclip thief is committing a criminal act.
Apparently, the most common crime is agreeing a "cash-in-hand" deal with a builder or other tradesperson to avoid tax: the homeowner gets the work done more cheaply because VAT is not added to the bill, while the builder escapes paying income tax - and everybody's quids in. That's what Simon (41), a teacher, did when he was getting his home renovated recently.
"I don't mind admitting to working with the builder when I was getting all the refurbishment done to get round the VAT issue. On two occasions, once before Christmas and then once at the end of the job, I paid him two lots of €5,000 in cash without VAT. Then there were a few smaller workmen who wanted hard cash with no questions asked - so there was well over €2,000 saved."
It seems that almost everybody can have a story of some shady dealings wheedled out of them with a little persuasion. Paddy (25), a civil servant, admits, "I 'steal the internet', by connecting through my neighbour's wireless router."
Some verge on the downright bizarre. Sean (39), a librarian, confesses that he has a penchant for stealing pens from his local post office. He adds, "You know those padded envelopes you can get there? Well, I use them too, but I secretly remove the price tag before I get to the counter: that way I only pay for the post and not the envelope." Doesn't he feel guilty about it? "Nah, they can afford it."
That's a common attitude among the middle-class light-fingered brigade: the assumption that no individual is being directly harmed, and that the coffers of large institutions or businesses are so chock-full of cash that the price of a padded envelope won't hurt them. Rosie (31) says that last month she accidentally took home a frying pan she had tucked into the shopping tray of her baby's buggy and forgotten to pay for. "It was a genuine mistake, and I ended up going back the next day to pay for it. The deciding factor for me was that I took it from a small, family-owned shop. But if it had been a big chain store, I wouldn't have bothered my head going back to pay."
Dr Richard HUll, who teaches ethics at NUI Galway, is familiar with this sliding moral scale. He often asks his first-year students a hypothetical question - if they were given €20 too much as change in a shop, would they give it back? As in Rosie's experience, the answer often depends on the kind of shop in question. If it's a large store, they would be more likely to keep the cash; if it's a little local one where they know the shopkeeper, the excess change would go back - because then the consumer "sees who it pinches".
Everyday infringements of the law don't always take the form of recreational stealing. Clare (33), an accountant, says that she's ashamed to admit that she uses her disabled mother's parking badge when she needs to park her car in the busy town centre where she lives - even when her mother isn't in the car. "I know it's wrong, but it's just so handy to pull up on a single yellow line and stick the badge on the windscreen. But the one thing I would never ever do is park in a designated disabled parking space. I draw the line there."
Richard Hull says that this is a particularly interesting case: "a morality within an immorality". It seems that many still have a desire to do the right thing - but we take an a la carte approach to morality, seeing it less as a rigid code to which we ought to conform, more as an ultra-flexible web that we can bend as need and desire dictates.
Are these everyday crimes indicative of a slide towards a morally bankrupt society, where people have no qualms about exploiting illegal opportunities whenever they present themselves? Last year, the Irish Conference of Bishops took a stand against the excesses of modern life, announcing that until morality was respected as the bedrock of personal integrity and communal life, Irish society - amid increasing material prosperity - would continue its "descent into moral chaos where literally anything goes".
The impulse to snatch as much as you can is a powerful one in today's Ireland, says Hull. "We have an economically-driven value system, and some people see getting ahead in life in purely financial terms. There's much talk of rip-off Ireland - the perception is that we are being ripped off right, left and centre - and people think it's okay to grab a little back. Especially if it's easy to get away with it."
Law-abiding majority?
•34% paid cash in hand to avoid taxation.
•32%kept money when "over-changed".
•18%had taken something from work.
•11% avoided paying their TV licence.
•8% did not disclose faults when selling second-hand goods.
•7% padded an insurance claim.
•6% asked a friend in bureaucracy to "bend the rules".
•5% claimed refunds they knew they weren't entitled to.
- source: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, London