Punishing White Collar Crime: Are Sentences Proportionate?
This paper critically examines Andrew Sorkin's 2005 New York Times argument that white collar criminals should not be sentenced as harshly as current laws permit. The paper challenges Sorkin's positions on deterrence and defendants' advanced age, arguing that these considerations fail to account for the devastating impact such crimes have on victims. Drawing on Robert Vigil's account of direct harm suffered by innocent individuals and their families, the paper contends that white collar criminal sentences must reflect the magnitude of harm caused, particularly when those crimes produce substantial tangible harm comparable to violent offenses.
- Introduction: The Debate Over White Collar Sentencing: Overview of Sorkin's 2005 argument on sentencing
- Sorkin's Arguments Against Harsh Penalties: Deterrence and defendants' age as mitigating factors
- The Case for Victim-Centered Sentencing: Vigil's evidence of harm to innocent victims
- Conclusion: Sentences Must Reflect Harm Caused: Sentences must be proportionate to harm caused
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper directly engages with a specific published source (Sorkin's 2005 New York Times article) and identifies a clear analytical gap — Sorkin's failure to consider victim impact — making the argument precise and grounded.
- It uses a counter-source (Vigil's account) strategically to supply the evidence Sorkin omits, demonstrating how to construct a rebuttal through source juxtaposition.
- The paper maintains a tight logical structure: summarize the opposing view, identify its weakness, supply corrective evidence, and draw a proportionality conclusion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source-based argumentation with gap analysis: the writer first fairly summarizes Sorkin's position and then identifies what is conspicuously absent from his analysis (victim harm). This technique — locating an argument's blind spot rather than simply disagreeing — is a hallmark of persuasive analytical writing at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized in two tightly unified paragraphs. The first paragraph summarizes and critiques Sorkin's claims about deterrence and defendants' age. The second paragraph introduces Vigil's evidence to foreground victim harm, then draws the normative conclusion that sentences must be proportionate to the magnitude of harm caused. Despite its brevity, the essay follows a complete argumentative arc: context, critique, counter-evidence, and conclusion.
Introduction: The Debate Over White Collar Sentencing
In his 2005 New York Times article, "How Long to Jail White-Collar Criminals?," Andrew Sorkin expresses a reluctance to punish white collar criminals as harshly as current laws allow. Sorkin cites several arguments, including the suggestion that the advanced age of defendants makes long sentences tantamount to a life sentence and that such sentences are out of proportion to the seriousness of other crimes eligible for similar penalties. According to one of Sorkin's sources, long sentences in high-profile cases provide less deterrent value than increased enforcement efforts that produce greater numbers of convictions but shorter sentences.
Sorkin's Arguments Against Harsh Penalties
Sorkin utterly fails to consider the impact of white collar crimes on those victimized by them and does not address that issue in his analysis at all. He merely acknowledges that the argument against harsh penalties does not go so far as to suggest that white collar crimes should go unpunished. This omission is a significant flaw in his reasoning, as the foundational purpose of penal law is inseparable from the harm inflicted on victims.
The Case for Victim-Centered Sentencing
Robert Vigil's account of the direct consequences of white collar crimes details the tremendous harm to innocent individuals and their families, serving as an effective reminder of the basis for penal law in the first place. While it may be appropriate to punish white collar crimes that do not cause substantial tangible harm to innocents less harshly than some violent crimes, that argument simply does not hold water in cases where those crimes do cause tremendous harm — such as those detailed by Vigil.
Furthermore, the position that the advanced age of white collar criminals should justify mitigating their criminal sentences completely ignores the effect their crimes have on the quality of the twilight years of their equally elderly victims. The Department of Justice's approach to fraud prosecution recognizes that financial crimes can be devastatingly harmful, particularly to retirees and others on fixed incomes who have no means of recovery. Sentencing decisions that center on the defendant's circumstances alone fail to weigh this asymmetry of harm.
Conclusion: Sentences Must Reflect Harm Caused
At the very least, white collar crime must be punished in a manner that reflects the magnitude and types of harms caused to innocent individuals. Arguments about defendants' age or the comparative deterrence value of shorter sentences cannot override the obligation of the justice system to acknowledge and respond proportionately to the real suffering imposed on victims. As scholarship on sentencing disparity continues to grow, the treatment of white collar offenders relative to the harm they cause remains a critical area of reform.
You’re 95% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.