White-collar crime is distinctive from street crime in part because it is generally considered to be non-violent. Some social scientists, however, argue that white-collar crime causes violence against others, it's just indirect; for example, embezzlement harms others through poverty, or polluting illegally hurts those affected by the toxins, and violating worker protection laws by underpaying or overworking staff causes direct harm. Do you think these social scientists are correct in viewing white-collar crime as violent, or do you think there is a major difference between crime where pain or injury is caused directly by another person and crime where pain or injury is caused indirectly? Explain your answer; it may help to start with your own definition of violence and when and why it should be criminalized (e.g., a football game contains violence, but it's not criminal; a tornado may be considered violent, but it doesn't even involve human actions).