NCJ Number
82235
Date Published
1982
Length
17 pages
Annotation
This study of white-collar crime sentencing decisions in Federal district courts shows that offenders with high incomes receive more lenient sentences and that plea bargaining required to gain convictions and guilty pleas produces more lenient sentences.
Abstract
A total of 6,562 cases sentenced in the 10 Federal district courts from 1974 to 1977 were examined. A procedure described in Hagan et al. (1980) was used to identify 31 offenses consensually recognized as white-collar crimes; remaining offenses were designated common crimes. This dichotomy was cross-classified with the offender's income. Four kinds of cases were identified: common crimes of high-income persons, the white-collar crimes of lower-income persons, the common crimes of low-income persons, and the white-collar crimes of high-income persons. The 10th district was unique in its disproportionate prosecution of persons involved in white-collar crimes. Mean sentence-severity scores were determined for the various offender-offense groupings. With a variety of other important variables held constant, the protactive district was found to grant lenient sentences to higher-income persons convicted of white-collar crimes. Two case studies of white-collar cases revealed that the obtaining of convictions and guilty pleas that will eliminate costly trial proceedings required the use of more lenient sentences. This was largely due to the nature of white-collar crimes, where the evidence required to convict must be obtained from persons who participated in the crime. Tabular data, 23 references, and 3 notes are provided.