Simple Rhetoric and Complex Punitiveness: Federal Criminal Justice Responses to White-Collar Criminality

Abstract

Though criminological literature shows that the manifestation of punitiveness in the criminal justice system is complex, it rarely differentiates between responses to different kinds of crimes. This constitutes a significant gap in knowledge, as it is widely believed that white-collar crimes are treated leniently. In light of the “heating up” of political rhetoric, the expansion of federal criminal law, and the increased maximum punishments on conviction, the article aims to explore whether prosecutorial and judicial responses to white-collar crimes have become more punitive, employing rarely used datasets from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) between 1996 and 2014. It is demonstrated that these responses are more complex and less consistently punitive than the rhetoric and policies advanced by politicians. It endeavors to capture the complexity of punitiveness in practice by measuring numerous variables and multiple points in the criminal justice process, studying punitiveness from multiple angles, using prosecution and sentencing data.     

Representational Altruism: The Wary Cooperator as Authoritative Decision Maker

What drives policymakers to put the interests of others above their own? If human nature is inherently selfish, it makes sense to institutionalize incentives that counter decision makers' temptations to use their positions to benefit themselves over others. A growing literature rooted in evolutionary theories of human behavior, however, suggests that humans, under certain circumstances, have inherent predispositions towards “representational altruism,” i.e., to make an authoritative decision to benefit another at one's own expense. Drawing on Hibbing and Alford's conception of the wary cooperator, a theoretical case is made for such behavioral expectations, which are confirmed in a series of original laboratory experiments.     

Does Federalism Weaken Democratic Representation in the United States?

The framers of the U.S. Constitution explicitly designed federalismto enhance representation. Because powers are divided amongmultiple governments, citizens are able to exert pressure onthe elected officials of various governments in an effort toachieve desired outcomes. If one government is not doing whatcitizens prefer, they can seek it from a different government.This assumes that individuals form opinions about the functionsperformed by different governments. Given the complexity offederalism, this may be an unrealistic assumption for many citizens.Original survey data uniquely suited to explore this questionsuggest that citizens do behave in a fashion consistent withthe federalist framework. Moreover, the actual change in theassignment of functional responsibilities across governmentsbehaves as if it responds to public opinion.