The white-collar villain

The white-collar villain

The white-collar villain is a wide range of offences that are performed through deception and motivated by economic benefit. The ordinary forms of white-collar offences include but are not limited to money laundering, embezzlement along with fraud. Many of the white-collar offences are usually cumbersome to litigate since the criminals habitually use complex means to hide their practices by a number of deals. Despite the difficulties in prosecuting the criminals involved in white-collar crime, their prosecution is usually assisted by the whistleblowers who report the internal wrongdoing. Whistleblowing is very instrumental in the trial of the criminals involved in white-collar crime since whistleblowers typically offer evidence which helps in the prosecution of the perpetrators of white-collar offence. This paper is purposed to give an evaluation of the white-collar offence along with the traditional street offences to locate the reason why the public policy in the USA drives criminal law to penalize the offenders.

Overview of the issue

White-collar crime in the USA is associated with substantial financial losses incurred by the country. The report by the USA FBI reveals that white-collar crime usually cost the USA more than $ 300 billion yearly. The government normally charges the individuals involved in white-collar offence by imposing various penalties on them. The penalties for the white-collar offence entail fine, community confinement, imprisonment, paying the cost of prosecution together with detention. Both the federal and state legislation set forth the practices that encompass the white-collar villains. States also usually deploy their law enforcement bodies to execute white-collar offence regulations at the state level. The laws are commonly applied to curb white-collar crime relating to embezzlement, money laundering, tax evasion together with security fraud..

The InStock trading scandal offers an overview of the issue of the white-collar villain. In the scandal, the perpetrator incurred less punishment relative to the amount stolen by the criminal. Martha Stewart committed the crime in the early 2000s after selling about $230,000 stocks of the company prior to the day the FDA failed to approve the experimental cancer drug offered by the InStock trading company. She was charged with insider dealing after she sold 4000 ImClone shares just a day before the firm’s stock plunged. In the court, the counts of security fraud against Marth Stewart were ruled out; however, she was found culpable on four counts. The court found her guilty of barring justice, conspiracy along with not telling the truth about the sale of the stock. Martha received light punishment where she was imprisoned for five-month, five months of house arrest along with 24 months of probation. The fraud caused the loss of a considerable amount of money that could not be compensated by the light sentence imposed on the perpetrator.

Moreover, Samuel Waskal, who was also implicated in the scandal, pleaded culpable to the charges of bank fraud, security trickery together with the hindrance of justice. The court imposed on him seven years and three months jail term in 2009, but he was released from the prison in the same year. All the offenders in the InStock trading scandal incurred lighter penalties relative to the offence they committed. It is evident in the case that perpetrators in the white-collar villain habitually suffer light sentences compared to the sentences imposed on the offenders involved in the traditional street crimes like robbery and burglary. For instance, the criminals involved in theft with violent crime are always likely to face a life sentence which is harsher compared to the perpetrators implicated in the white-collar crime. The small cases involving traditional street crimes like robbery and burglary typically induces less economic impact compared to the white-collar crimes, yet the small street criminals experience stern penalties as opposed to the white-collar offenders.

The nature of the issue

The prevalence of comparatively light white-collar penalties usually harms the economy of a country by making the country to lose a large chunk of money which considerably affect money circulation in the country. The light sentencing of the white-collar criminals usually does not ensure total reimbursement of the stolen money by the criminals and hinders the effective circulation of money into the economy. The huge amount of money is usually under the possession of a few individuals who do not utilize the funds effectively to run the economy of a nation. For example, the lenient penalizing of Paul Manafort to 47 months imprisonment as a punishment for a string of charges which made the internal revenue services to incur losses in millions of dollars adversely impacted the economy of USA. The sentence was not relative to the amount of money lost in the fraud. Furthermore, the money was not fully retrieved back; instead, it was under the possession of one individual, and this affected the flow of the money in the economy which in turn adversely impacted the general economy of the USA.

Discussion on the reasons for a relatively light white-collar sentence

The policy rationales for penalizing white-collar offenders less harshly surrounds the judicial sentencing philosophy concerning white villain criminality. The widely allowed confirmation for punishing offenders encompass specific deterrence, retribution, incapacitation alongside rehabilitation of the criminals. Retribution as a justification for punishment is derived from the moral conviction that the individuals who breach the vital norms of the society deserve to endure painful consequences. The retributionist also perceives punishment to serve the noble purpose of denouncing criminal conduct hence expressing the outrage of the community at the offence. In the entire mainstream rationale of punishment is a severe tension amidst the social interest in punishing the crime and the concern flowing from individualized justice for the specific offender. The pressure usually intensifies while dealing with white-collar crime. The retributivist approvals have far fewer challenges in locating of offenders as morally deserving of punishment than identifying the certain degree of punishment essential in amending the malefactor’s guilt and expression of the society outrage at the crime. Furthermore, the retributivist acknowledges that suppose the blameworthiness of an offence was to be measured by social harm alone then some white-collar crimes would deserve more severe punishment than any street offence. The privileged position of the white-collar offenders normally suggests that their decision to breach the law encompasses a more deeply blamable betrayal of social norms compared to the illegal behaviour of the ignorant or impoverished involved in traditional street crimes. Based on the retributivist justifications, the white-collar offenders are generally treated less harshly compared to street crime offenders because of their privileged position and the fact that the magnitude of their offence is not measured by social harm alone.

Justification on the importance of addressing relatively white-collar sentences

The lenient treatment of white-collar villain criminals usually exposes the country to economic challenges associated with the distorted normal flow of money in the economy. The white-collar criminals typically tend to hold back a large chunk of money from their criminal activities. The possession of the vast amount of money by the criminals is usually caused by the lack of strict laws that would ensure total recovery of the funds to the economy. It is therefore essential to address the issue of relatively fair treatment of white-collar offenders to help in imposing equal sentences compared to the traditional street crimes to alleviate the country from adverse economic impact induced by the white-collar offenders. The issue should also be addressed to promote equity injustice.

PART II

Relevant theories

The useful theories that best describe the contemporary public policy on white-collar sentencing include rational choice theory, social learning theory and strain theory. The rational choice supposition assumes that the choice to commit an offence emerges from the logical discernment of cost against benefit. It emphasizes penalty as the most appropriate method of preventing people from committing crimes. The theory further requires the law enforcement agencies to make the cost of committing an offence to outdo the reward the offender is likely to derive from the offence, and this will make criminals decide not to commit the crime. The rational choice theory best explains the current policy of lenient treatment of white-collar offenders. The law enforcement agencies typically impose fair sentence on the white-collar offenders compared to the traditional street criminals because of the privilege position of the white-collar offenders.

Stain theory, on the other hand, explains the breakdown of social norms that normally accompany abrupt social change. The supposition argues that offence happens when there is a disparity amidst the social objectives of a community and the structural methods to attain the goals. The strain amidst means and goals lead in frustration, resentment and motivates some individuals to use illegal ways to secure success. In summary, strain theory holds that the cultural values and social structures of a community exert pressure on individuals to perform offence. The strain theory best explains the current policy because the law enforcement agencies often pass fair treatment for the white-collar offenders basing their arguments on the social structures that compel the criminals to commit a crime. Hence, it helps in offering a rationale for lenient treatment that the white-collar offenders receive.

Likewise, the social learning theory argues that people engage in criminal or non-criminal acts depending on the social environment that surround them. It further states that criminal conducts are learned and can be counteracted by establishing a social surrounding which does not encourage the normalization of criminal conduct. The theory habitually supports less punitive programs for offenders, especially the juveniles. It, therefore, explains why white-collar offenders receive lenient treatment because it encourages the law enforcement agencies to execute the criminals engaged in white-collar offences through applying light sentence.

PART III

Proposed policy

The proposed policy concerning the penalization of the white-collar villain in relation to the execution and retribution of traditional street crimes involve calculating the magnitude of the social harm inflicted by the crime before punishing the white-collar criminals. The law enforcement should ensure that they calculate the magnitude of the offences and base their sentences based on the severity of the crime. Since the white-collar crimes habitually involve substantial financial losses, the law enforcement agencies should estimate the magnitude of the loses and impose harsh treatment on the offers depending on the social harm the crime induced to the society. The policy would, therefore, help in promoting equality in penalizing the white-collar offenders in relation to the traditional street offenders since it will enable both the offenders to be sentenced based on the magnitude of social harm their actions inflict to the society.

The policy should treat sentencing for white-collar crimes by encouraging imposition of harsh sentences on the offences based on the magnitude of the social harm the crime induced to the society. For instance, in a white-collar offence involving loss of funds that exceeds USD 100, 000, the offender under the policy should incur fine which exceeds the amount of benefit on the crime along with a jail term not less than two years.

The severe sentence on the white-collar offenders under the policy should promote equity in penalizing both white-collar offenders along with convectional street criminals.

A rationale for the policy

The policy would be useful in fostering equity in sentencing both kind of offenders. It will make white-collar criminals incur charges based on the magnitude of their criminal activities in the society. The higher the extent of social harm, the harsher the sentence the white-collar criminal will incur. The policy, therefore, would help to solve the issue of fair treatment of the offenders because it will propel the law enforcement agencies to execute charges on the criminals based on the magnitude of their activities on the society.

The targeted audience

The policy targets the white-collar criminals involved in high-class economic offences.

Law that will be enacted to assist the policy

The general deterrence policy will be enacted to assist in the execution of the policy. The deterrence policy will help in assessing the magnitude of the crime before imposing sentence on the criminals.

Impact of the policy on the CJS

The policy will impact the criminal justice system by altering the sentences offered to the white-collar criminals because it will encourage harsh charges as opposed to the lenient charges offered by the system before the implementation of the policy.

Cost-benefit analysis

The policy will induce huge economic benefit compared to the cost of white-collar crime. It will encourage the total recovery of the amounts lost through the white-collar crimes on top of other charges which will be imposed on the offenders, and this will consequently outweigh the economic costs of white-collar offences. `

Summary

The white-collar villain is a wide range of offences that are performed through deception and motivated by financial benefit. Offenders implicated in white-collar crimes normally receive lenient treatment compared to traditional street crime criminals. Their action usually inflicts economic impact on the country by distorting the normal flow of money in the economy. The lenient treatment of the white-collar criminals should, therefore, be curtailed through implementing the proposed policy of calculating the magnitude of the social harm inflicted by the crime before punishing the white-collar criminals.