NCJ Number
163469
Date Published
1996
Length
21 pages
Annotation
Failure to extend the "three strikes and you're out" policy to white collar offenders provides persuasive evidence of the class bias that fuels this overly punitive policy.
Abstract
By common agreement, acts and omissions by white collar offenders account for a considerably higher percentage of deaths than murders by so-called common criminals. Three strikes laws ignore white collar crimes, despite polls indicating significant public concern over such crimes. Discrimination between crime in the "streets" and crime in the "suites" is based on the fact that street crimes have a greater immediacy and visibility and appear to pose a higher threat than more distant and impersonal suite offenses. White collar offenders may benefit from prison experience because they almost invariably stop their criminal activity once apprehended. In line with reclassifying screening mechanisms for three strikes laws, it may be appropriate to eliminate criminal culpability for corporations and to address their criminal activities in the civil arena where the burden of proof is less and penalties can be just as severe as in the criminal arena. Eliminating corporate criminal liability may encourage a more intense focus on specific acts of corporate officials who should bear personal criminal responsibility for their lawbreaking. The author concludes that the failure of three strikes laws to meet equal justice standards for equivalent kinds of wrongdoing demonstrates their deficiencies and the negative influence of race, class, and ethnic biases that produced the laws. 56 references