Myopic or Long-Term Thinking: What Type of Decision-Making Moderates Moral Reasoning and Punishment for White-Collar Crime in the Light of Cost Information

• In Event: Public Opinion and Decision-Making in the Context of Courts and Sentencing

Abstract

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines for sentencing white-collar criminals establishes economic loss as a main consideration relevant to sentencing apart from the effect on the victim. Each year, it costs the government approximately $34,000 per person kept in jail, which detracts from the government’s capacity to provide productive social services in the form of education and health. Research has shown that people tend to neglect costs associated with punishment and tend to punish at any cost when these costs are not made explicit. However, most of the research that examines the interaction of cost and sentencing leaves out white-collar crime. Therefore, this study will look at how salience of costs associated with incarceration and how information on these costs results in loss for other avenues for public funding impacts punishment preferences impacts sentencing for an instance of occupational white-collar crime (violation of the Clean Air Act) and traditional street crime (drug trafficking). Additionally, cost information is supposed to elicit more long-term thinking among participants, resulting in a reduction of their sentencing preferences and correlation with utilitarian goals of punishment. Using the Iowa gambling task, the study will also examine if participants’ “myopia of the future” predicts the type of preferred sentencing and if this varies in the presence of costs associated with punishment. Using a quota-based sampling, the demographic makeup of the sample (n=550) will closely resemble that of the latest US census on age (above 18 years), gender, and racial composition. Results and implications are discussed.

Author

• Merin Sanil, Rutgers University-Newark