The Sentencing of White-Collar Criminals in Federal Courts: A Socio-Legal Exploration of Disparity

Authors

Ilene H. Nagel, Indiana University, Bloomington, School of Law
John L. Hagan, University of Toronto

Abstract

This Article addresses that question by examining judicial sentencing philosophy as applied to white-collar criminality and reporting data that illuminate the operation of that philosophy. Part I of the Article argues that the traditional purposes and limits of criminal sentencing may plausibly justify either disparate or comparable sentences in cases of white-collar and common criminality. Part II describes the obstacles to an accurate empirical inquiry into how judges resolve these uncertainties in the theory of punishment. Part III presents a study designed to overcome as many of these obstacles as possible. What is most dramatic is that the resulting data do not appear to support the oft-presumed hypothesis that judges impose lighter sentences on high-status individuals convicted of white-collar crimes than they impose on lower-status individuals convicted of common crimes.4 The data, however, suggest that a significantly increased emphasis on the prosecution of white-collar crimes may encourage sentencing disparities in favor of those convicted as a result. These findings form the Article's conclusion and a foundation for further research.

Recommended Citation

Ilene H. Nagel & John L. Hagan, The Sentencing of White-Collar Criminals in Federal Courts: A Socio-Legal Exploration of Disparity, 80 Mich. L. Rev. 1427 (1982).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol80/iss7/4