WHEN CRIME PAYS

White-Collar Offenders Get Lenient Treatment

Justice is supposed to be blind, not dumb. But it's hard to see any
logic or fairness in the way a number of white-collar defendants have
been sentenced in north Alabama.

Consider the case of Sheila Pickett Allen, a former First Alabama Bank
employee who embezzled $138,000, much of it from a church account.
Federal sentencing guidelines called for her to serve 12 to 18 months
in prison. Allen's initial sentence? One hour in custody. No fine. No
restitution. No kidding.

Not until a higher court intervened did U.S. District Judge James
Hancock reconsider and give Allen a one-year prison term.

The case was not unusual. News writers Val Walton and John Archibald
reviewed sentencing records in north Alabama and found white-collar
criminals routinely received leniency even after stealing thousands of
dollars.

Of 457 white-collar defendants convicted in Alabama's Northern
District since 1997, 279 of them served less than six months in prison
- - and 184 of those served no time at all. That's 40 percent of
white-collar defendants avoiding prison.

This lenient treatment is way out of proportion to what's happening
with other federal crimes. While the average sentence for bank fraud
in the Northern District was eight months, for instance, the average
sentence for drug possession was 68 months.

Part of the problem is that federal sentencing guidelines set such
stiff sentences for drug offenders. A first-time offender convicted of
possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine faces 63 to 78 months in prison.
The sentence range for a first-time embezzler is set much lower - 27
to 33 months for someone who steals $200,000.

But in north Alabama, the disparity is made even worse by judges who
come down especially hard on drug defendants and tend to go easy on
white-collar offenders. White-collar criminals across the country
received sentences a third longer than those convicted in Alabama over
the past 15 years. But those convicted of simple drug possession here
received sentences that were 54 percent longer than the national average.

There are valid reasons for some differences in sentencing. It's
perfectly reasonable, for instance, to use serious jail time more
often for those who are violent and pose a threat to society than for
embezzlers. The sentencing guidelines take that into account, and they
appropriately leave at least some room for judges to make judgment
calls about individual defendants. But there is something wrong when
white-collar defendants are getting such lenient treatment even by
white-collar standards.

Judges in the Northern District must be mindful of the fact that the
sentences handed down in their courtrooms need to remotely resemble
justice.

White-collar crimes may not be violent, but they are certainly not
victimless. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners estimated
$600 billion was stolen in 2002 through fraud and abuse in the U.S.
workplace. All consumers end up paying a price for this kind of crime.

It's not asking too much to insist the perpetrators also pay a fair
price for their crime.