Sentencing White-Collar Criminals (From Fraud Prevention and Control, P 1-21, 2000, Australian Institute of Criminology -- See NCJ-186569)

• NCJ Number: 186583
• Author(s): Arie Freiberg
• Date Published: January 2001
• Length: 21 pages
• Sale Source: Australian Institute of Criminology
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Conference Material
• Language: English
• Country: Australia
• Note: Paper presented at the Fraud Prevention and Control Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology on August 24-25, 2000.

Annotation

This paper explains the difficulties faced by the Australian courts in sentencing white-collar criminals as it highlights a series of paradoxes faced by judges in such cases.

Abstract

These paradoxes revolve around the distinctions between the serious crimes committed and the type of people who commit them, the distinctions between property crimes and violent crimes, the differences between profits and losses, the disparity between the number of offenses committed and the crimes actually charged, the various pathways to justice, the exigencies of the criminal justice system and the practical issues in plea bargaining, the balance between formal and informal punishments, the competing purposes of sentencing, and the differences between the real and symbolic aspects of sentences. The paper also examines some empirical evidence regarding sentences imposed on white-collar criminals and explores some alternatives to the current system in Australia. Alternatives discussed are sentencing guidelines, the use of community service, shaming, and restorative justice programs. A 30-item bibliography and a table of recent white-collar sentences in Australia