Commentary (Money Laundry/Criminology)
Critical Challenge
The article, “The Challenges of White Collar Sentencing” by Ellen S. Podgor explores the conceptual approaches that are linked with sentencing white-collar offenders. As such, Podgor demonstrates that those white-collar offenders in the US have faced punishment far above enacted in previous years (Podgor, 2007). Even though the sentencing guidelines have some flexible outcomes based on the recent Supreme Court judgment, the philosophy of authorized guidelines still invades the structure (Podgor, 2007). Despite the approach, a large number of people are quick to denounce the conduct of the offenders, but the repugnance with the crime always overlooks a commonality among those involved (Cassidy & Gibbs, 2019). Podgor offers empirical evidence to support the assumption that current corporate white-collar offenders are normally people who have never been sentenced to any criminal conduct, but they end up facing incredibly long-term imprisonment (Podgor, 2007). As such, punishment imposed on first offenders for the economic crisis in most cases goes above violent street crimes, for example, murder.
Although the theoretical aspects are based on the sentencing of white-collar offenders, the finding of the article demonstrates that there is a need for the government to reevaluate this form of punishment (Galvin & Simpson, 2019). Based on the approaches that are utilized in the study, the government of the United States has failed to recognize unique features that are linked with white-collar offenders, and this has hindered the federal system from identifying the sociological roots of the crime (Podgor, 2007). The study further demonstrates that crimes should be examines using multidimensional approaches, which helps law enforcers to examines specific wrongs and repercussions to society (Podgor, 2007). In this case, law enforcers should examine individual culpability in relation to the crime committed, which is a way of enhancing transparency in the process.
The contextual findings demonstrate that uniqueness in white-collar crime is a critical aspect that law enforcers should focus on. Based on the sociological roots, there is no degree associated with white-collar crimes as they are not predicated according to the circumstances (Podgor, 2007). As such, the research study validates that in most cases, future dangerousness is a critical quantitative approach that is highly ignored by the law court (Podgor, 2007). Therefore, the kind of punishment imposed by the court should focus on controlling the future dangerousness linked with fraud and other abnormal social behavior (Cassidy & Gibbs, 2019). The approach could be deployed in order to control society from risks, which hinder economic and social performance, and this can be done by eliminating a person from participating in corporate roles (Testa, 2019). Through the approach, the law enforcement agencies will be in a position to balance the crime and nature of punishment imposed, which helps in enhancing transparency in law application (Burns & Meitl, 2019).
In most cases, judges use a mathematical equation based on the sentence guidelines to measure wrongfulness. However, the application of the equation has triggered an increase in sentences of white-collar crimes, which has resulted in an increase in statutory punishment set for fraud offenses (Galvin & Simpson, 2019). As such, imprisonment is perceived as the norm for all those who commit a crime, which hinders the application of other control approaches (Podgor, 2007). Therefore, the conceptual approach that guides the sentencing of white-collar offenses should be examined in detail. The mathematical approach that is deployed should consider the deficiencies and individual culpability (Testa, 2019). Through the approach, the guiding system will be in a position to avoid issues associated with proper recognition of the offender, the crime, and the essence of protecting the community from future dangerousness.
Theoretical Application
Theoretically, all criminal laws are ground in the punishment theory, and this influences the kind of actions that should be taken (Podgor, 2007). Through the application of the general theory of criminal behavior, it is easier for law enforcement agencies to develop more logical ways of dealing with collar crime (Podgor, 2007). Based on punishment theory, it is crucial to examine a person’s motive to commit a crime, and this may determine the kind of sentence imposed (Testa, 2019). The approach should be linked with the sentencing guidelines, which help in examining the factors behind the action, and this could help law enforcement agencies in determining the kind of action to take.
Recommendation
The issue of sentencing collar white offense is a critical aspect that should be examined in detail. Therefore, law enforcement agencies need to reevaluate the issue to ensure the guidelines set promotes transparency in the punishment. As a way of enhancing the process, sociological aspects, such as classes, need to be included in the establishment of guidelines, and this will ensure the sentencing system is fair enough to all parties involved. Through this approach, the government will be in a good position to examine the wrongful act based on the general and specific aspects linked to the crime (Testa, 2019). Through this approach, the government will manage to establish laws and sentences whose goals are to protect society from issues such as fraud.
References
Burns, R. G., & Meitl, M. B. (2019). Prosecution, defense, and sentencing of white‐collar crime. The Handbook of White‐Collar Crime, 279-296. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jasmine_Hebert/publication/346927843_Book_Chapter_Controlling_Corporate_Crimes_in_Times_of_De-regulation_and_Re-regulation/links/5fd2569b299bf188d40af972/Book-Chapter-Controlling-Corporate-Crimes-in-Times-of-De-regulation-and-Re-regulation.pdf#page=305
Cassidy, M., & Gibbs, C. (2019). Examining sentencing patterns and outcomes for white-collar and property crime offenders. Victims & Offenders, 14(1), 75-95. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15564886.2018.1547996?casa_token=-Zlc3f0IUCAAAAAA:stjuiZExHh370z5907Zug2IvCtE0OaG3U3hZiZSFcb1qsi5V-OVKlwOMAL3L8-AmUnHuxUVGuac4vzowSw
Galvin, M. A., & Simpson, S. S. (2019). Prosecuting and sentencing white‐collar crime in US Federal Courts. The Handbook of White‐Collar Crime, 381-397. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jasmine_Hebert/publication/346927843_Book_Chapter_Controlling_Corporate_Crimes_in_Times_of_De-regulation_and_Re-regulation/links/5fd2569b299bf188d40af972/Book-Chapter-Controlling-Corporate-Crimes-in-Times-of-De-regulation-and-Re-regulation.pdf#page=407
Podgor, E. S. (2007). Challenge of white collar sentencing, The. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 97, 731. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7268&context=jclc
Testa, A. (2019). Examining federal criminal sentencing of white-collar and common property offenders: The case of embezzlement and larceny. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(5), 681-707. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0887403417709313
