Deciding to prosecute white-collar crime: A national survey of state attorneys general

In the past decade, academic research on white-collar crime has reemerged. Most of this inquiry has focused on three general issues: (1) public attitudes toward the seriousness of white-collar crime; (2) the use of government sanctions to control white-collar crime; (3) the differential and often beneficial treatment afforded white-collar criminals in comparison to traditional offenders. Little of this research has examined the prosecutorial link between occurrences of white-collar crime and the imposition of sanctions on white-collar offenders. In this study, an attempt to focus on the link that exists at the level of state attorneys general, a survey of the 50 state attorneys general was conducted. The results suggest the following: (1) state attorneys general prefer to use criminal sanctions, but use them most in cases involving individuals; (2) when organizations are involved in white-collar criminality, civil intervention is preferred; (3) the most crucial factor in the decision to prosecute and investigate white-collar crime is the seriousness of the offense; (4) the least important factors in the decision to investigate and prosecute white-collar violations are publicity aspects and political considerations; (5) state attorneys general may play an important part in the prosecution of white-collar crime because of the limited resources available in most local prosecutors' offices.