Do any white collar crimes call for death or life sentences?

[According to Pliny]

We (US) currently have life sentences for "career criminals" or "three strikes" in many states. In other countries, of course, these may result in death sentences.

Presuming three burglary convictions rate a life sentence
And maybe one selling of atomic bomb secrets rates a death sentence
Do white collar crimes meet similar tests for similar sentences?

I read a lot about scam artists who clean out dozens of their neighbors, taking all their savings, or stealing all the company's retirement fund, and then getting a few years at most and being still wealthy upon release without owing full restitution.

I think most white collar criminals get off too easy, and I don't know why.
So I think that just as we provide life and death sentences "as deterrent" for violent or treasonous crimes, so should we do that for white collar career criminals. To make an example and put fear and reluctance into the hearts of those white collar criminals as yet undiscovered.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Death sentence, no. I'm just opposed to it. I'd like to think that white collar criminals get punished aptly, but then I hear about the prisons they go to. Of course, it's hard to get at exactly what happens to a white collar criminal in "Club Fed". I fear that the moniker exists for a reason, and that the punishments there aren't nearly as severe as they are in, let's say, Levenworth or Attica. Then again, they ARE two different animals. One is maximum security, the other is minimum security.

So, to make a long post a little shorter, are you essentially asking if we should put white collar criminals in general population? If that's the question, then I'd say no, for their safety. I WOULD say that we should house them in the same building and have some mingling with the seedier criminal element. Prison is prison, after all, and shouldn't even be CLOSE to a pleasant place to live.

Anyone know where we can get more information on "Club Fed" or a former inmate's story of what it was like?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Hm. I'll answer (http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/2002/09/novak.html) my own questions, then.

[ITR champion]

I'm not yet convinced that jail sentences should be the standard punishment for serious crimes. But if they are, time served should be proportional to the crime. If a street thug holds up a liquor store and steals $500 while a CEO embezzles $500,000 from his compoaniy's retirement funds, the CEO should get a jail sentence one thousand times as long. That only makes sense in terms of deterring damage to society. No one at the liquor store suffers greatly from the missing $500, while many employees' lives will be ruined by the scheming CEO.

Of course the real problem is that white-collar criminals are generally wealthy, wealth is power, so these people can simply rewrite the laws to make their crimes legal. Case in point is Artuhr Anderson, the accounting firm that helped Enron run its criminal schemes. They gave brib, errr, I mean campaign contributions to both parties in the mid 90's to get the rules about accounting changed, and thus they didn't actually do anything criminal when they approved bogus audits which testified that everything at enron was legit. Once it's officially legal, the Constitution forbids doing anything to punish them.

[Renob]

The main difference between white collar and other crimes is that many other crimes involve the use of force or the threat of force. That element is missing in white collar crimes. In general, if you use violence to commit a crime you receive a longer sentence. Holding up a liquor store with a gun is a much more serious crime than embezzlement because the liquor store robber has shown a willingness to kill or wound in order to get his way. Violent criminals deserve to be punished much more severely than white collar criminals.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I'm not so sure about that, boner backwards. I'm not so convinced that white collar crimes are as "harmless" as you'd make them out to be ("harmless" not being a direct quote, but a comparison).

Additionally, are you happy with the level of punishment for a person that commits violent crimes, or do you want to see stiffer penalties?

[Renob]

Did I say they were "harmless"? No, I said that the use of force in commission of a crime makes that crime much more serious.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I know you didn't say "harmless". I said that you didn't say that.

At what point does a crime of force intersect with a crime that has little or no force? Do those lines ever intersect?

[Sapo]

At least the street mugger has the courage to face off with his victims and risks his neck when he commits his crime. White collar criminals can kill a ton of people from an air conditioned desk with just a couple clicks.

Plus the street mugger is a one-by-one (artisanal, if you want) criminal. White collars are bulk producers. Just as you punish a 1-pound bag corner pot seller less severely than a ton-pallet smuggler, a white collar criminal should be punished taking in consideration the volume of his crime.

[Keeve]

The main difference between white collar and other crimes is that many other crimes involve the use of force or the threat of force. ... the liquor store robber has shown a willingness to kill or wound in order to get his way.I'm not going to disagree with your conclusion, but I do want to point out something about how you phrased it.

Namely, you're confusing forcing the victim with harming the victim.

I'll agree that most white-collar victims do not suffer immediate and direct physical harm to their bodies in the course of the crime's occurence. However, in many cases, they have been forced to lose their money and possessions. It is taken from them without their even knowing it.

That's all, back to the discussion... :)

[Keeve]

They gave brib, errr, I mean campaign contributions to both parties in the mid 90's to get the rules about accounting changed,...(emphasis added)
I do not like the idea of a politician who says, "This guy gave a lot of money to my campaign, so I'm going to vote the way he wants me to." But as much a I hate it, I must admit that I do understand it. Not all politicians are honest, and it makes sanse that a dishonest politician would favor the people who gave him big bucks.

But what I don't understand is a politician who says, "This guy gave a lot of money to my campaign, so I'm going to vote the way he wants me to, even though he also gave a lot to my opponent."

I don't get it. Don't the two donations cancel each other out?

[D_Odds]

I'm not yet convinced that jail sentences should be the standard punishment for serious crimes. But if they are, time served should be proportional to the crime. If a street thug holds up a liquor store and steals $500 while a CEO embezzles $500,000 from his compoaniy's retirement funds, the CEO should get a jail sentence one thousand times as long. That only makes sense in terms of deterring damage to society. No one at the liquor store suffers greatly from the missing $500, while many employees' lives will be ruined by the scheming CEO.

Of course the real problem is that white-collar criminals are generally wealthy, wealth is power, so these people can simply rewrite the laws to make their crimes legal. Case in point is Artuhr Anderson, the accounting firm that helped Enron run its criminal schemes. They gave brib, errr, I mean campaign contributions to both parties in the mid 90's to get the rules about accounting changed, and thus they didn't actually do anything criminal when they approved bogus audits which testified that everything at enron was legit. Once it's officially legal, the Constitution forbids doing anything to punish them.
You are aware that Arthur Andersen is no more, due to the Enron fiasco, are you not? Also, accounting rules do not come from Congress, they come from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (http://www.fasb.org/) (FASB).Since 1973, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has been the designated organization in the private sector for establishing standards of financial accounting and reporting. Those standards govern the preparation of financial reports. They are officially recognized as authoritative by the Securities and Exchange Commission (Financial Reporting Release No. 1, Section 101 and reaffirmed in its April 2003 Policy Statement) and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (Rule 203, Rules of Professional Conduct, as amended May 1973 and May 1979). Such standards are essential to the efficient functioning of the economy because investors, creditors, auditors and others rely on credible, transparent and comparable financial information.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has statutory authority to establish financial accounting and reporting standards for publicly held companies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout its history, however, the Commission’s policy has been to rely on the private sector for this function to the extent that the private sector demonstrates ability to fulfill the responsibility in the public interest.That is not to say that firms like the former Arthur Andersen and Enron do not contribute to Congress in an effort to create a favorable business climate for these firms.

[Renob]

At least the street mugger has the courage to face off with his victims and risks his neck when he commits his crime. White collar criminals can kill a ton of people from an air conditioned desk with just a couple clicks.
So we are talking about murder here? How many white collar criminals are responsible for the deaths of "a ton of people"? I was under the assumption that most white collar crime was of the Enron type, where a bunch of people get ripped off, not the mass murder type. Please correct me if this assumption is wrong.

I do not like the idea of a politician who says, "This guy gave a lot of money to my campaign, so I'm going to vote the way he wants me to." But as much a I hate it, I must admit that I do understand it. Not all politicians are honest, and it makes sanse that a dishonest politician would favor the people who gave him big bucks.

But what I don't understand is a politician who says, "This guy gave a lot of money to my campaign, so I'm going to vote the way he wants me to, even though he also gave a lot to my opponent."

I don't get it. Don't the two donations cancel each other out?
Politicians, in general, do not have their votes for sale. Politicians, in general, vote their convictions. People with similar convictions give them campaign contributions to help keep them in office. Anyone who says that campaign contributions are "bribes" is either ignorant of the English language or just plain ignorant.

Namely, you're confusing forcing the victim with harming the victim.

I'll agree that most white-collar victims do not suffer immediate and direct physical harm to their bodies in the course of the crime's occurence. However, in many cases, they have been forced to lose their money and possessions. It is taken from them without their even knowing it.
No, I'm not confusing force (or violence) with harm. I know that white collar crime harms a victim. However, white collar criminals are not violent people. In this country, if you use violence or threaten violence in the commission of a crime, your penalties are much more severe (that is the difference between first degree rape, second degree rape, third degree rape, etc., for instance). Violent thieves should be punished more severely, regardless of the amount of money they stole. They are much more of a threat to society. I would much rather be walking down a dark alley with Jeffrey Skilling, for instance, than with your average street mugger.

At what point does a crime of force intersect with a crime that has little or no force? Do those lines ever intersect?
I have no idea what you are asking here. Violent crimes involve the use of force or violence. Non-violent crimes do not.

[Keeve]

Violent thieves should be punished more severely, regardless of the amount of money they stole. They are much more of a threat to society. I would much rather be walking down a dark alley with Jeffrey Skilling, for instance, than with your average street mugger.
I feel that there are so many variables involved, that it is tricky to make blanket statements.

I disagree with your "regardless". On the one hand, a street mugger who has a gun is more dangerous than a street mugger who does not have a gun, and should consequently be punished more severely. But let's compare a street mugger who punches someone in the face and steals $50, to someone who forges a check and gets his victim's life savings with no physical attack. I'll never say to go lightly on the mugger, but it could be that the forger is an even greater danger to society.

[Don26]

Treason does. At least in statute, if not in practice.

[Keeve]

Agreed that treason is often (usually?) done merely by transfer of information, with no use of weaponry, but I doubt that it is included in what people usually consider "white-collar" -- They tend to mean crimes which are purely of a financial nature, and specifically excluding hard currency.

[Sapo]

So we are talking about murder here? How many white collar criminals are responsible for the deaths of "a ton of people"? I was under the assumption that most white collar crime was of the Enron type, where a bunch of people get ripped off, not the mass murder type. Please correct me if this assumption is wrong.


Think of Enron. How many employees were left out on the streets? Don't you think their quality of life suffered? I believe that if any of them lost a single day (to stress, life choices as a consequence of, etc) of life, that is a life taken.

You might find that too much of a stretch. I concede but won't the costs to the government of managing the case will compete with social programs on which people rely? medications, food, social assistance? Won't their reduced lifespans be a consequence of this man's crimes?

Still too removed with the a climbing deficit to buffer action and consequence? Think of your typical Corrupt Third World politico. Without ordering armed action against enemies or any other obviously violent action. Don't you think that when he steals some money for his luxuries he is stealing from the purse that feeds hundreds that have nothing else to support themselves?

Think funding cuts to workplace safety. Jobs lost to otherwise unnecessary downsizing and the ensuing depressions, suicides, divorces, crimes of passion, education failures, petty crimes from these dropouts and so on.

White collar crime decreases quality of life for all around. How many lives is a second of life expectancy worth in a country of 300 million? It may not be a bullet to heart issue but a more complicated billiard shot that still starts with a man's action and ends in another's death.

[Shagnasty]

Think of Enron. How many employees were left out on the streets? Don't you think their quality of life suffered? I believe that if any of them lost a single day (to stress, life choices as a consequence of, etc) of life, that is a life taken.

I agree. Some people died as the result of Enron it just isn't as easy to make tally who it was and the body count. Lose of medical care, suicide, stress induced by devastating loss and many other factors would have an effect on all the Enron and Arthur Anderson employees that were suddenly not just jobless, but may have literally lost everything. It wasn't a faceless crime:

Obligitaroy Wikipedia link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron)

"Thousands of Enron employees and investors lost their life savings, children's college funds, and pensions when Enron collapsed. A lawsuit on the behalf of a group of Enron's shareholders has been filed against Enron executives and directors. This lawsuit accuses twenty-nine of these executives and directors of insider trading and misleading the public.

Because the 401(k) plan is a defined contribution plan, there was no PBGC insurance and employees lost the money they invested in Enron stock. They could only sue those considered a fiduciary for breach of their duty of care based on ERISA Section 404."


I say that the orchestrates of massive corporate scandals should be up for the death penalty. The closest analogy is treason. People that commit treason introduce great risk to many people for the purpose of getting themselves power, money, or other things. Money isn't just a bunch of digits on a balance sheet like some of you seem to be insinuating. They represent people's homes and retirements and a very large scandal like Enron can and did affect the U.S. economy as a whole which in turns puts a drag on the world economy.

A person that robs a liquor store with a shotgun and ends up killing five people inside only directly impacts a relatively small number of people. A scandal like Enron can directly affect thousands of people and indirectly affect hundreds of millions.

One of the arguments against the death penalty is that people that commit some of the eligible crimes don't have the capacity to associate cause and effect. That is a point towards giving perpetrators of some of the mega-corporate scandals the death penalty. These people are very bright unlike some of the thugs and the crimes they commit require excruciating attention to detail over a long period. They have to be so inventive that even professional auditors with graduate degrees can't catch what they are doing and yet some are certainly doing it right now.

I believe that setting some dollar base-line (with rather water-proof formulas for the really devious) would make smart yet evil executives think very hard before they commit such and thing and affect thousands. The amount in question would probably be very high (over $100 for example) and be designed to protect against the largest corporate fraud schemes. The current punishment for these crimes is grossly disproportionate to the damage they have caused.

[Shagnasty]

:smack: The amount in question would probably be very high (over $100 million for example)

$100 would be a low limit.

[Damuri Ajashi]

The only moral rationale for the death penalty (IMO) is deterrence. I am not convinced (yet) that the death penalty will deter the sort of violent crimes that scurrently warrant the death penalty in some jurisdictions but I am convinced it will deter white collar crime. With that said, is the deterrence of white collar crime enough to kill someone over?

Life sentences on the other hand are fine by me if the fraud is great enough.

[Der Trihs]

While I don't support the death penalty ( I don't trust the government with it ), I do think high level white collar crime deserve a life sentence. I also think that the fines levied should at a bare minimum be enough to eliminate any profit from of crime; none of this take a hundred million and leave him 900 million nonsense. As for why they don't and won't get the death penalty, it's because America is pretty much an aristocracy. The elite class is punished less than the commoners. Privilige in action.

[Sapo]

as a footnote to my posts. I am not favouring or opposing death penalty (I can save those for the pertinent discussion). I am just saying that white collar crimes should be punished at least as severely as violent crimes because their scope and consequences can be larger.

[Miller]

So we are talking about murder here? How many white collar criminals are responsible for the deaths of "a ton of people"? I was under the assumption that most white collar crime was of the Enron type, where a bunch of people get ripped off, not the mass murder type. Please correct me if this assumption is wrong.

I'd say that (for example) knowingly using substandard parts in construction of a building that later suffers a cataclysmic structural failure would be both murder, and a white collar crime.

[Menocchio]

I'd say the difference in perception and therefore punishments between a purely financial act and other criminal activities is the feeling of personal violation.

If a burglar were to break into my home, and cause me $5,000 of loss in damage and theft, I'd suffer disproportionately to the monetary value of my losses. The security of my home has been violated. My privacy has been destroyed by a stranger. Items of sentimental value fair exceeding their actual market value may be lost. Even if it's all covered by insurance, even if they catch the guy and give me back the stuff, I'm still harmed in a very visceral way. Crimes against my person or my tangible personal property affect me way back in my lizard brain.

In contrast, I don't have that much attachment to the numbers in my portfolio. If someone where to steal from me in such an abstract manner, it doesn't hit me in the gut like that, even if they steal much more than the above burglar did. The crooked CEO or accountant wasn't in my house. He wasn't rifling through my wife's underwear drawer. I don't fear that he'll come back and hurt my kids. I appreciate that the difference vanishes when one's entire livelihood or savings is wiped out, but most white collar crime isn't as drastic as all that.

In a perfectly rational world, criminals would be punished is accordance to the monetary damage they cause their victims. But we don't live in a perfectly rational world. The mugger harms his victim in ways other than the cash he takes or the bodily wounds he inflicts.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

So we are talking about murder here? How many white collar criminals are responsible for the deaths of "a ton of people"? I was under the assumption that most white collar crime was of the Enron type, where a bunch of people get ripped off, not the mass murder type. Please correct me if this assumption is wrong.


Politicians, in general, do not have their votes for sale. Politicians, in general, vote their convictions. People with similar convictions give them campaign contributions to help keep them in office. Anyone who says that campaign contributions are "bribes" is either ignorant of the English language or just plain ignorant.


No, I'm not confusing force (or violence) with harm. I know that white collar crime harms a victim. However, white collar criminals are not violent people. In this country, if you use violence or threaten violence in the commission of a crime, your penalties are much more severe (that is the difference between first degree rape, second degree rape, third degree rape, etc., for instance). Violent thieves should be punished more severely, regardless of the amount of money they stole. They are much more of a threat to society. I would much rather be walking down a dark alley with Jeffrey Skilling, for instance, than with your average street mugger.


I have no idea what you are asking here. Violent crimes involve the use of force or violence. Non-violent crimes do not.


Everyone's "votes" are for sale. You prefer the side or person that gives you preferential treatment.

White collar is a kind of violence, I suppose we could argue. It takes a special kind of person to sign a paper and put people out of jobs to line his pockets. It takes a kind of psychopath to act without regard for the people that make the business go. It's hubris of the highes t degree to think that you're the only reason that the company is going strong and that you deserve more money, even if oyu have to take it. These kinds of people, and ones like them, are just the white collar equivalent of a mugger, rapist, or murderer.

What I was asking, since you changed the terms, is where do white collar crime and blue collar crime mix? It seems that you're saying that those two lines never intersect. You did say that the use of force makes a crime much more serious. Both crimes, therefore are serious, and it stands to reason that a person that embezzles millions upon millions of dollars is as bad as a street tough that steals a candy bar have "force" in common. It just seems to be the amount.

This is after the post where you said that there was no force in white collar crime, for the record.

This statement might need further clarification.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I'd say the difference in perception and therefore punishments between a purely financial act and other criminal activities is the feeling of personal violation.

If a burglar were to break into my home, and cause me $5,000 of loss in damage and theft, I'd suffer disproportionately to the monetary value of my losses. The security of my home has been violated. My privacy has been destroyed by a stranger. Items of sentimental value fair exceeding their actual market value may be lost. Even if it's all covered by insurance, even if they catch the guy and give me back the stuff, I'm still harmed in a very visceral way. Crimes against my person or my tangible personal property affect me way back in my lizard brain.

In contrast, I don't have that much attachment to the numbers in my portfolio. If someone where to steal from me in such an abstract manner, it doesn't hit me in the gut like that, even if they steal much more than the above burglar did. The crooked CEO or accountant wasn't in my house. He wasn't rifling through my wife's underwear drawer. I don't fear that he'll come back and hurt my kids. I appreciate that the difference vanishes when one's entire livelihood or savings is wiped out, but most white collar crime isn't as drastic as all that.

In a perfectly rational world, criminals would be punished is accordance to the monetary damage they cause their victims. But we don't live in a perfectly rational world. The mugger harms his victim in ways other than the cash he takes or the bodily wounds he inflicts.


So let's say that losing your portfolio makes it impossible for you to retire/send your kids to college/get a new car/get a new house/pay for grandma's emergency plunger removal surgery. That's NOT going to drastically hit you?

[gonzomax]

Does the 3 strikes and your out provision apply to white collar crime?

[Menocchio]

So let's say that losing your portfolio makes it impossible for you to retire/send your kids to college/get a new car/get a new house/pay for grandma's emergency plunger removal surgery. That's NOT going to drastically hit you?
No, but most white collar crime isn't that drastic. Most of it is much more petty, and doesn't wipe out its victims like that. Judging white collar crime by Enron is like judging blue collar crime by Dillinger. As long as I'm not financially ruined, I'd rather lose $25,000 by someone monkeying with my portfolio than $5,000 by breaking into my home. The portfolio... It's just numbers. Rather important ones, but nothing compared to my health or home, or even my other personal posessions. Those have a primal tangibility.

[Sapo]

No, but most white collar crime isn't that drastic. Most of it is much more petty, and doesn't wipe out its victims like that. Judging white collar crime by Enron is like judging blue collar crime by Dillinger. As long as I'm not financially ruined, I'd rather lose $25,000 by someone monkeying with my portfolio than $5,000 by breaking into my home. The portfolio... It's just numbers. Rather important ones, but nothing compared to my health or home, or even my other personal posessions. Those have a primal tangibility.
Barring personal injury, how is it that you prefer to lose $25K to losing your TV and Stereo? Can't you buy a bunch of them with the $25K?

[Menocchio]

Barring personal injury, how is it that you prefer to lose $25K to losing your TV and Stereo? Can't you buy a bunch of them with the $25K?
I'm attached to my personal possessions beyond their simple financial value.

More than that, I'm attached to the idea that my home is safe and my privacy secure. The idea that someone was in my home going through my stuff harms me in a way that's much greater than the financial damage done by the thief. It's not rational, and I'm not even sure it's right, but it is so. Obviously, there's some point where purely financial damage from messing with my more abstract assets becomes greater than the emotional harm done by violating my home or person, but I can't say where that is.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Well, I suppose it's fair enough, but it makes for a hard point to debate because it's a feeling.

And, of course, I disagree with your feeling, but I understand what you're saying.

[Steve MB]

Life sentences on the other hand are fine by me if the fraud is great enough.
I would note that the arguments against putting them in the general population of a PMITA prison with violent offenders do not apply to 24/7 solitary confinement....

[Steve MB]

In contrast, I don't have that much attachment to the numbers in my portfolio. If someone where to steal from me in such an abstract manner, it doesn't hit me in the gut like that, even if they steal much more than the above burglar did.
If they steal enough, the security of your home is most certainly violated (when it ain't your home no more after the foreclosure proceedings).

[DigitalC]

White collar criminals aren't dangerous to be around, their crimes usually revolve around the power they had which has very likely been lost by their conviction. The difference isnt simply "a white collar crime will cost me a lot more than a blue collar one", you don't get shot when a white collar crime goes wrong, your wife might lose her life savings but she won't get raped and murdered by some sick fuck, your children might not go to college but they will not get run over by a getaway car. Financial ruin just doesn't compare to the kinds of problems violent crime causes and shouldn't be treated the same. Personally i feel the punishment should be a financial one rather than jail time when absolutely no violence or threat of violence is used, the enron guys should spend the rest of their lives working at a menial job with almost every cent of spare cash they make going to the people they ruined, but spending a day in jail is just not necesary.

[Shagnasty]

White collar criminals aren't dangerous to be around, their crimes usually revolve around the power they had which has very likely been lost by their conviction. The difference isnt simply "a white collar crime will cost me a lot more than a blue collar one", you don't get shot when a white collar crime goes wrong, your wife might lose her life savings but she won't get raped and murdered by some sick fuck, your children might not go to college but they will not get run over by a getaway car. Financial ruin just doesn't compare to the kinds of problems violent crime causes and shouldn't be treated the same. Personally i feel the punishment should be a financial one rather than jail time when absolutely no violence or threat of violence is used, the enron guys should spend the rest of their lives working at a menial job with almost every cent of spare cash they make going to the people they ruined, but spending a day in jail is just not necessary.

All I can say is that you have a big difference of opinion with other people on this matter especially me. My family has a rather inexplicable ability to become the targets of violent crimes even though we are just a white middle-class family.

1) My father was kidnapped randomly by a man that hid in the back of his car at a convenience store and held hostage overnight and the man finally tried to kill my father and another woman which was thwarted when my father fought back. The man got life in prison.

2) I was the "victim" of an attempted armed robbery by two men but I also fought back and was successful. They got 3 years and 5 years respectively.

3) My grandfather and his ex-wife were held hostage in their rather isolated home, robbed, and then tied to chairs and then left. The man was killed in a shootout with police later that night.

4) My grandmother on my father's side had a man break down the door in the middle of the night and hold her hostage. She decided to sooth him and he eventually fell asleep early in the morning and she escaped to a neighbors. He had drug and mental problems and I don't think a lot ever came of it.

Now all of these things are plenty to shake you up for a while but I don't consider them in the same league with losing most everything you had toiled for years or decades and I am sure that other people how have experienced similar things feel the same way. You can ask my grandfather for a direct comparison. He later had a business partner cash out and flee the country with $500,000 of his money. He was 62 years old at the time and now, at 80, he just announced over Christmas that he finally worked enough to get it all back. I don't understand the elevation over violent crime over other types unless there is permanent death, dismemberment, or other trauma like rape. I would take 100 of those again before I would forgo my house, the ability to travel to see family, and the privilege of not working when I am too old to reasonably do so.

Violent crime can just come and go in a matter of minutes or hours. Having someone steal your hard-earned can affect you and your family greatly for life.

[DigitalC]

Now all of these things are plenty to shake you up for a while but I don't consider them in the same league with losing most everything you had toiled for years or decades and I am sure that other people how have experienced similar things feel the same way. You can ask my grandfather for a direct comparison. He later had a business partner cash out and flee the country with $500,000 of his money. He was 62 years old at the time and now, at 80, he just announced over Christmas that he finally worked enough to get it all back. I don't understand the elevation over violent crime over other types unless there is permanent death, dismemberment, or other trauma like rape. I would take 100 of those again before I would forgo my house, the ability to travel to see family, and the privilege of not working when I am too old to reasonably do so.

Violent crime can just come and go in a matter of minutes or hours. Having someone steal your hard-earned can affect you and your family greatly for life.


You think that way because all those situations luckily had a good outcome, but the chance of life loss was definitely there. Sure, ill take getting mugged ten times for 500 bucks each over getting scammed out of 500,000 once, but if each of those muggins has a 10% chance of ending with you getting shot would you still feel the same way? My point wasn't that violent crime always results in physical harm or death, but that there is a chance that it will that doesn't exist at all in white collar crime. If you or one of you loved ones had ended up dead, which happens with violent crime every single day you would consider your life savings meaningless.

[Shagnasty]

You think that way because all those situations luckily had a good outcome, but the chance of life loss was definitely there. Sure, ill take getting mugged ten times for 500 bucks each over getting scammed out of 500,000 once, but if each of those muggins has a 10% chance of ending with you getting shot would you still feel the same way? My point wasn't that violent crime always results in physical harm or death, but that there is a chance that it will that doesn't exist at all in white collar crime. If you or one of you loved ones had ended up dead, which happens with violent crime every single day you would consider your life savings meaningless.

Fair enough but I think a conspiracy that will deliberately affect the quality of life for untold numbers of people still counts as a greater harm than a single person getting killed in a robbery turned bad. I don't make a hard distinction between death or bodily harm and large conspiracies that destroy lives in other ways.

Crimes like Enron are actually a form of retroactive slavery which is a crime that most people put in the heinous category. Employees worked and then contributed money to their 401k plan to store value that they needed for later life. Enron later stole the money that they worked for meaning that employees were working part-time to earn money not for themselves, but for their masters and they had no knowledge of it. The use of the term slavery fits because people's labor was set up to benefit only those that controlled the system in a direct monetary sense.

[monstro]

I fail to see the difference between an unarmed guy breaking into my home with intent to steal my jewelry, and an unarmed guy breaking into my checking account with intent to steal my money. In fact, I'm actually more terrified of the latter because he could easily leave me penniless, in a matter of seconds, whereas the burgular cannot. I've been a victim of both identity fraud and repeated burgularies. Both kinds of crimes are highly stressful, harrowing, and violate one's self of security. So I think they should be treated similarly.

Weighing the "fear" evoked from one kind of crime to another is meaningless in this discussion, anyway. The idea of someone holding me hostage and repeatedly raping me is far more scarier than him/her murdering me in cold blood. But I don't think first-degree murder should take a backseat to false imprisonment and rape.

I think it's only fair that if people want a "three strikes" policy towards certain non-violent felonies, they include serious white-collar crimes. So if Martha Stewart gets caught redhanded two more times, her butt is going to jail for life. I personally don't agree with three-strikes, but I'm all for fairness and consistency.

[Steve MB]

Financial ruin just doesn't compare to the kinds of problems violent crime causes.
The fact that the former can easily cause the latter (for the obvious reason that destitution forces people to live in crime pits) negates that distinction when white-collar crime reaches that point, IMO.

[Menocchio]

I think most people can agree that violence or the direct threat of violence are worse than theft by itself. We'd agree that the mugger who takes $100 from you at gunpoint should get a worse punishment than either the pickpocket who takes $100 or the petty corporate criminal that somehow takes $100 from you.

But some white-collar crime operates on a massive scale (not all, or even most, I'd guess, there's a trend in this thread to see all WCC in terms of Enron, while all other crimes are in terms of petty thieves. Is it right that Schilling gets a lesser punishment than Gotti or Bundy?) . The question becomes, how do we scale up the punishment for non-violent crimes? How do we punish the con artist who steals millions more than the con artist who steals a couple thousand? Should we? Is the lesser criminal really "better" than the corporate crook, or did he just not have the same opportunities?

The real point of prison, more than deterrence, rehabilitation, or retribution, is simply to get the criminals away from the law abiding public for a time. Once caught, a spectacular white collar criminal will likely never have the opportunity to steal in such a manner again. His career is ruined (who would hire him? And where applicable his actions can be curtailed by law), and most of his assets should be seized to pay off his debtors. He can't simply walk out on the street and start ripping off investors again, the way a rapist may start looking for a new victim.

Assuming that all possible efforts are made to seize and return the stolen funds, I don't have much of a problem with shorter sentences for all non-violent crimes. As for "club fed" type prisons, I think that the type of prison one goes to should be based on the risk of escape, not the crime per se. If corporate criminals are really less likely than rapists and drug dealers to try and escape (which is an assumption I wouldn't mind seeing backed up by actually data), then I don't really see the problem with putting them in minimum security prisons.

[monstro]

I think most people here are stuck on the "white collar" part of "white collar" crime. A person who steals credit card information or property titles is just as much a white collar criminal as a Ken Lay or Martha Stewart. Release an identity thief into the public and he/she has just as much opportunity to reoffend as a house burgular or a car thief. As do pyramid schemers, phony insurance agents, and corporate embezzlers.

In fact, white collar criminals have MORE opportunity to reoffend than lots of other criminals do, simply because it's close to impossible to avoid the arenas that got them in trouble in the first place. Once corporate embezzlers get out of jail, they still have to make money somehow, usually serving under someone who trusts them somehow (and even janitors and fry-jockeys have opportunity to steal from the till). Insurance scammers can still buy and benefit from insurance policies. Martha Stewarts still have the right to invest in stocks. Computer hackers aren't permently barred from computers. A drug dealer can theoretically avoid drugs, child molesters are registered and legally restricted from contact with kids, and murderers have limited access to weapons. But because a white collar criminal takes advantage of the institutions that everyone needs to function (jobs, identity, finances), it is very hard to keep them away from temptations. It also makes them harder to spot. In that way, they are much better predators than, say, your run-of-the-mill cat burgular.

One could argue that many violent crimes occurs in the heat of the moment. Even the Pope might physically assault someone out of rage if provoked hard enough. A robber carrying a piece may have absolutely no intent to use it. A mugger may only intend to grab a woman's purse, but when faced with unexpected resistance he might throw a punch out of sheer panic. Whereas most white collar crimes take lots of planning, scheming, unscrupulous behavior, and intent. IMHO, that's scarier than some random punk breaking my jaw for my ATM card. Yeah, there's a small chance that he could kill me in the process, but we don't charge criminals for what they COULD have done, but what they DID do. And I'd rather a guy break my jaw than drain my entire life's savings.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Another distinction that I think should be made and is relatively interesting is that crimes of theft on a blue collar scale that require force to do tend to be acts of desperation. White collar crimes tend to be acts of greed.

Of course, I'm sure we can point to many examples otherwise, but I feel that this is the trend.

[toxic reverend]

Michael McCann, the longtime district attorney of Milwaukee County,
(retired 12 / 31 / 2006 )was best known for prosecuting Jeffrey Dahmer.
McCann had also prosecuted more than ten corporations for reckless
homicide over the last two decades and had won every case (162 (http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20080426105537/www.angelfire.com/nm/redcollarcrime/criminC.html)). But he
did not convict any people. Just the corporations.

One of the things we need is legislation to mandate criminal charges for
"The Reckless Operation of a Corporation". It needs to include
mandatory jail sentences when the CEO of a corporation t recklessly
operates the corporation and that results in the death of someone.

It amounts to "Negligent Homicide" and it happens all of the time. The one real difference between you and me committing reckless homicide with a vehicle while intoxicated and a CEO driving his corporation is thatt
the courts do not charge our car with a crime. The courts would charge
us. But not so with a CEO and their corporation. Usually, it is only the
corporation that gets charged with a crime., if at all. Not the CEO and
or other corporate exec's.

The criminal negligent homicide laws used against
corporation's 162 are not uniform with various State
laws and the laws vary dramatically, from State to State 162 .

Another report that concerns the variances of State laws
(besides 162 ) is:

PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION REPORT
Shook, Hardy & Bacon Law Firm FEBRUARY 18, 2010.
The PDF report is posted at:
http://www.shb.com/newsletters/PLLR/PLLR021810.pdf

While convictions of corporations for negligent homicide are rare,
it has been done (162). Though presently, such "situations" usually result in Deferred and Non Prosecution Agreements. Of which are
usually arranged by way of methods deployed in manipulating health
care with "Tacit Conspiracies" of "the revolving door" and
tractable money trails (MT1, MT2, MT4). It is rather rare, but
on occasion, all of the dots get connects to demonstrate how this
works. One example is an article by the Los Angeles Times (*MT3*)
about a case that echoes the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling. The
Times reported that a few Congressman combined their influences to
prevent the investigations and prosecutions of am (that is one) of the
S&L banking rip off's in the 1980s that cost taxpayers $1.6 billion (*MT3*).

Reference article titled;
Crime Without Conviction: The Rise of Deferred and Non Prosecution Agreements
By Russell Mokhiber Editor of Corporate Crime Reporter December 28, 2005 and posted at
http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/deferredreport.htm




Of which does leave me to wonder how often history might repeat
itself, when such large sums of cash are involved (*MT3*) ?


Legislation for "Mandatory Criminal Charges and Sentences"
would set a cascading set of events into motion that would ultimately
"Fix The MIC's" ! It would
simply "jam up" the typical operating procedures of such
"Tacit Conspiracies".

The prevention of "profit losses" to a corporations stock value is
some thing that I suspect the CEO's of large corporations do not
want the shareholders to consider, when it comes to legislation with
criminal charges for the "Reckless Operation of a Corporation".

One of the strategies (and reference material) that I am reviewing
is that legislation for "The Reckless Operation of a Corporation" could
dramatically improve the bottom line profits of large corporations. The
basic strategy is that "it is always about the money". While the CEO's of
large corporations take risks in the hopes of being rewarded for raising
profits, they often ignore the consequences because their "personal risk"
is not that much of a factor.

Some examples were documented. Such as the 60 Minutes episode
about the BP Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Disaster. The interview with
a survivor and Professor Bob Bea exposes how a BP exec took control
of the operation (after a heated exchange) and took risks that caused
the disaster, in the hopes of making "more profit".

In reference:
Deepwater Horizon's Blowout, Part 2 - 60 Minutes - CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6795540n


The amount of money that BP has had to spend trying to clean
up the mess and it's "liability" could have been mitigated if
not prevented by a law for the criminal prosecution for the
"Reckless Operation of a Corporation". It is a scenario that
appears to be more that a "common thread" with such "situations",
after researching this, for over a decade.
(Work in progress with macular degeneration handicap - TK)

Other example extend to our food safety, too.
Search terms:
"peanut butter salmonella criminal charges"
For anyone wanting to help research this:
"Massey coal miner deaths criminal charges"
and
"criminal charges corporation"


You might think that would be a tough case to prove. But the district
attorney that convicted Jeffrey Dahmer also convicted ten corporations
of negligent homicide (162). The reasons why this is so rarely done are
investigated, here.


(Work in progress with macular degeneration handicap - TK)

American Roulette;
It is the red of white and blue collar crime in America.

American Roulette - Red Collar Crime
http://sites.google.com/site/toxicrevelations/red-collar-crime---american-roulette

Partial excerpt:

Revolvers are for Russians.:

In America, we use use products, health care services, BP Oil Rigs
nuclear reactors (y, z), food safety, Safety On The Job and labor rights. Amy thing
that can "turn a profit", while not being easily recognized
as the life and death gambling for profits with "Red Collar Crimes".

Additional reference article:

The Next Wave – Call It Red Collar Crime
Published by Corporate Crime Reporter 32(1), August 3, 2006
http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/redcollarcrime080306.htm

[Two Many Cats]

Death Penalty? No.

Locking them up with the common prison population? Oh, hell yeah!

Shoot, I'd even say bring back public flogging just for these guys. And sell it on pay per view.

[Damuri Ajashi]

If we're going to ressurect this thread...

If deterrence is the only justification for the death penalty (and i don't think there really is any other justification that can overcome the fact that we will occasionally kill innocent men and those innocent men will almost always be poor minorities) then I can tell you for a fact that the death penalty would be an effective deterrent to Enron type crime. Noone making millions a year risks their life to make tens or hundreds of millions a year and only people who make millions a year are in a position to commit that sort of crime.

Even stiffer jail sentences would have a chilling effect on white collar crime.

Here's an interesting statistic. The chances of getting caught on audit for things that are not automatically flagged by IRS computers is something like 2%. The penalty for failure to pay taxes might top out at a 40 or 100% penalty and noone goes to jail unless fraud is involved, this is almost impossible to prove unless people try to doctor documents after an audit begins.

[fumster]

The main difference between white collar and other crimes is that many other crimes involve the use of force or the threat of force. That element is missing in white collar crimes. In general, if you use violence to commit a crime you receive a longer sentence. Holding up a liquor store with a gun is a much more serious crime than embezzlement because the liquor store robber has shown a willingness to kill or wound in order to get his way. Violent criminals deserve to be punished much more severely than white collar criminals.Really? I've been robbed at knife point and gotten over it, having my life's saving taken away by Madoff would be much worse.

[gonzomax]

The main difference between white collar and other crimes is that many other crimes involve the use of force or the threat of force. That element is missing in white collar crimes. In general, if you use violence to commit a crime you receive a longer sentence. Holding up a liquor store with a gun is a much more serious crime than embezzlement because the liquor store robber has shown a willingness to kill or wound in order to get his way. Violent criminals deserve to be punished much more severely than white collar criminals.

EWrong.
Madoff destroyed lives, emptied charities, stole pensions and retirement funds for thousands of people. Wealthy people became homeless. Workers lost their savings. It was violence to their lives.That is far more serious than knocking over a party store.

[LonghornDave]

EWrong.
Madoff destroyed lives, emptied charities, stole pensions and retirement funds for thousands of people. Wealthy people became homeless. Workers lost their savings. It was violence to their lives.That is far more serious than knocking over a party store.

Madoff was sentenced to 150 years. Any party store thieves sentenced that long?

[smiling bandit]

If a street thug holds up a liquor store and steals $500 while a CEO embezzles $500,000 from his compoaniy's retirement funds, the CEO should get a jail sentence one thousand times as long.

I've heard this a lot. It's cute. But consider that the CEO, though he may have being a lying thief, didn't use violence. Violence is a legitimately-punishable offense aaginst the public good. The low-class thief isn't being hauled in just because of the 500 bucks. He's being sent to prison for whipping out a gun and threatening others.

That said...


I oppose the death penalty for most violent crimes. I do hold it is appropriate for those who violated the public trust, and their punishment should be public. I am not worried about killing murderers as much as I am in favor of executing spies in our government, bureaucrats who break the law for their personal power, and people who violate their office and commit crimes as part of their public "service". I would not find it unjust to execute Mike NiFong, for example (the prosecutor in the Duke LaCrosse Rape case). I would not find it unjust to execute certain officials in some Department of Child Services, who have been known to use state power to kidnap and sell children, in addition to generally abusing their authority.

[gonzomax]

Madoff was sentenced to 150 years. Any party store thieves sentenced that long?

Third strikers, sure.Three strikes and you get life. But a party store robber does not destroy thousands of lives at the same time. The financial damage is minuscule when compared to Madoff. But Madoff is not the only one. If you watch MSNBC,s "American Greed", you see financiers, bankers and investment scam artists over and over.

[Bryan Ekers]

Zombie-bumpin'? That's a hanging.

[Steve MB]

I'll agree that most white-collar victims do not suffer immediate and direct physical harm to their bodies in the course of the crime's occurence. However, in many cases, they have been forced to lose their money and possessions. It is taken from them without their even knowing it.

That last point is the keystone of this argument:

They look upon Fraud as a greater Crime than Theft, and therefore seldom fail to punish it with Death; for they alledge, that Care and Vigilance, with a very common Understanding, may preserve a Man's Goods from Thieves, but Honesty has no fence against superior Cunning; and since it is necessary that there should be a perpetual Intercourse of Buying and Selling, and dealing upon Credit, where Fraud is permitted and connived at, or has no Law to punish it, the honest Dealer is always undone, and the Knave gets the advantage.