Examining Federal Criminal Sentencing of White-Collar and Common Property Offenders: The Case of Embezzlement and Larceny

• Author: Alexander Testa
• Published date: 01 June 2019
• Date: 01 June 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417709313
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417709313

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2019, Vol. 30(5) 681 –707

© The Author(s) 2017

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403417709313

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Examining Federal Criminal

Sentencing of White-Collar

and Common Property

Offenders: The Case of

Embezzlement and Larceny

Alexander Testa1

Abstract

This study addresses the question of whether those charged with embezzlement—

an offense characterized as a white-collar crime—are punished leniently, severely,

or approximately the same compared with similarly situated larceny offenders—an

offense characterized as a non–white-collar property crime—in federal criminal

proceedings. To assess this question, the current study uses propensity score

matching techniques to create a comparable sample of embezzlement and larceny

offenders. Using data from the United States Sentencing Commission on individuals

sentenced from years 2005 to 2010, the current study finds embezzlement offenders

are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration relative to larceny offenders. In

addition, the findings suggest that embezzlement offenders did not have a significantly

higher likelihood of receiving a sentence of incarceration in the years following the

onset of the Global Financial Crisis.

Keywords

sentencing, white-collar crime, courts, propensity score, disparity

Introduction

The current study addresses the question of whether those charged with embezzle-

ment, an offense often characterized as a white-collar crime, are punished leniently,

severely, or approximately the same as compared with non–white-collar property

1University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Corresponding Author:

Alexander Testa, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, 2220 Samuel

J. LeFrak Hall, College Park, MD 20742, USA.

Email: atesta@umd.edu

709313CJPXXX10.1177/0887403417709313Criminal Justice Policy ReviewTesta

research-article2017

682 Criminal Justice Policy Review 30(5)

offenders charged with larceny in federal criminal proceedings. Although research in

the 1970s and 1980s generated substantial attention regarding punishment of the

white-collar offender (Hagan & Nagel, 1982, 1986; Nagel & Hagan, 1982; Wheeler,

Mann, & Sarat, 1988; Wheeler, Weisburd, & Bode, 1982), little empirical research on

sentencing of white-collar offenders has occurred after the implementation of federal

sentencing guidelines (Simpson, 2013). Moreover, contemporary research has rarely

examined whether the punishment of white-collar offenders is influenced by high-

profile white-collar crimes (for exception, see Van Slyke & Bales, 2012). This is an

important limitation as prior research finds prominent white-collar criminal events or

political scandals such as Watergate and the collapse of Enron can influence the sen-

tencing of white-collar offenders (Benson & Walker, 1988; Hagan & Palloni, 1986;

Van Slyke & Bales, 2012). Accordingly, the current study also addresses the question

of whether embezzlement offenders were punished more severely relative to larceny

offenders in the years following the Global Financial Crisis.

Conducting contemporary research focusing on the punishment of white-collar

crimes is important for several reasons. First, the lack of research on the punishment

of white-collar offenders during the postsentencing guidelines era is problematic as

the appropriate levels of punishment for white-collar offenses continues to generate

attention among criminal justice practitioners and policy makers with the past three

decades marked by numerous changes to federal and state sentencing guidelines tar-

geting white-collar offenses specifically.1 Indeed, several formal changes have been

made to sentencing guidelines in recent years to address concerns of relative leniency

and ensure that sentencing for white-collar crimes appropriately address the harm to

the victims, individual offender culpability, and the offender’s intent (see Bibas, 2005;

Richman, 2013).

Second, despite policy changes and growing rhetoric of a crackdown on white-

collar crime over the past few decades (see Calavita & Pontell, 1994; Van Slyke &

Bales, 2012), there is some evidence indicating that white-collar offenders may still

receive relatively lenient punishment in comparison to similarly situated non–white-

collar property offenders. For instance, according to data from the Transactional

Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC; 2015), federal white-collar crime prosecu-

tions have been declining in recent years, and reached a 20-year low in 2015. In addi-

tion, numerous accounts have documented reluctance to use criminal punishment

against malfeasant behavior by Wall Street employees following the 2008 financial

crisis, in what has become deemed “too big to jail” (Barak, 2012; Garrett, 2014).

Third, focus on punishment for white-collar crime is important for sentencing

research and theory more generally as it can contribute knowledge regarding how

status characteristics of individual offenders’ influence punishment outcomes. As

Hagan, Nagel, and Albonetti (1980) recognized over three decades ago,

the examination of the prosecution and sentencing of white-collar crime can tell us much

about how the social organization of a particular type of crime can influence the way it is

controlled. In turn, this type of understanding may do much to enlighten a long tradition

of research on status characteristics and sentencing. (p. 817)