Sentencing Identity Theft for Monetary

Sentencing

Identity Theft for Monetary Gain: Sentencing Guidelines

Question a: What specific information would you like to know before imposing a sentence?

Federal sentencing guidelines for identity theft list some of the following factors for consideration, including the number of victims, harm to the victim's reputation, inconvenience suffered by the victim or victims, and other matters that make the crime more difficult for the victim (Amendment of Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, 1998). For example, an act of identity theft that destroyed the victim's credit history and impeded the victim's ability to get a job is of greater severity than the theft of a dead person's credit card to use for fraudulent purposes. A systematic scheme to defraud hundred of people by professional criminal would be judged more harshly than a poor college student who finds a credit card in a lost wallet and decides to buy some clothes off of the Internet, hoping that no one will be the wiser.

Also, the number of means of identification, identification documents, or false identification documents involved in the offense, and the value of the loss to any individual caused by the offense are of consideration. Someone who uses a birth certificate, social security number, and totally steals another person's life and robs them of their savings is committing an offence with more serious potential repercussions for the victim than someone using the person's credit card number alone.

Other factors are the defendant's motive and criminal history, which are likely to be conjoined in this crime. Is this a thoughtless crime of convenience and petty theft of a fully fledged criminal scheme? Is the defendant remorseful, did the crime arise because of circumstance (for example, a computer science who discovers how to beat a security system and steals credit card numbers vs. A professional criminal)? How much was stolen and the number of transactions, and what was the criminal activity will also affect the sentencing, although it is worth remembering that 18 U.S.C. 1028 "The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998" makes identity theft a federal crime, making the crime one of mandatory severity in sentencing (Identity Theft Resource Center, 2007).

Question B: How would you incorporate the sentencing goals of retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restitution in your sentence of this individual for this particular crime?

Identity theft may often be a 'white collar' crime, but it is not a victimless crime. Jail time for a wide-spread scheme may be appropriate for this reason. Even if the victims whose identities were stolen did not suffer financial losses, the businesses such as the credit card companies who were defrauded may have experienced financial harms, and a loss of time as well as money. If possible, financial restitution might be appropriate especially if the crime was perpetuated by a syndicate of criminals or by an institution with substantial financial resources. The newly evolving nature of the crime may require that the guilty defendants be made 'examples' for the community.