Should high-ranking corporate officers who commit white-collar crimes be sentenced less harshly than thugs who commit robbery on the streets or break into homes to steal people's possessions? Is either type of crime more reprehensible than the other? Why, or why not?
We should not sentence high-ranking corporate officers committing white-collar crimes less than others that commit crimes. In both cases, whether we're dealing with embezzlement or robbery, there is a motive and there are victims. Most of the basic elements of each crime are the same. The crimes differ in type and level of violence. The motive in each is different based upon the individual circumstances. These are the elements that we have to take into consideration. Even though we have these basic differences, the intent is the same - to commit a crime. White-collar crimes happen because corporate officers and others become greedy, plain and simple. Within this realm of greed, ethics, morals, ...
This solution discusses the conviction of white-collar crimes.