NCJ Number
91789
Journal
Judicature Volume: 67 Issue: 4 Dated: (October 1983) Pages: 174-182
Date Published
1983
Length
8 pages
Annotation
A survey of New York City judges indicated that while each judge has generally defined white-collar crime and resolved the problem of sentencing to his/her own satisfaction, there are considerable differences among them as to solutions.
Abstract
In an attempt to gain some information as to whether judges are confused about sentencing for white-collar crime and are race or class biased, interviews were conducted with a sample of judges sitting in New York City (7 State judges and 7 Federal judges, including 11 males and 3 females, 12 whites and 2 blacks). The interview questions were designed to elicit open-ended responses from the judges. All the judges agreed that the principal goal of sentencing is deterrence, and there was near unanimity in the belief that a prison term is a much more severe punishment for a middle-class offender than a lower-class offender. Further, there was broad consensus in the view that convicted public officials should receive more severe sentences than private citizens. Most judges felt that a person who has a long history of arrest without convictions, provided there are reasonable indications of a criminal lifestyle, should receive a more severe sentence upon conviction. The judges differed significantly in their practice of making allowances in sentencing for possible further administrative punishment of the offender, and they also differed in their conscious response to public opinion in their sentencing. There was also significant difference in the judges' preferences for various types of sentences. Finally, there was disagreement as to whether sentencing disparity exists in their courts. Ten footnotes are provided.