In recent years, white collar crime has been on the rise as the powerful stockbrokers, financial advisors, and corporate bankers find ways to abuse the system for their own personal gain. Examples such as Bernie Madoff or Jordan Belford have made their way to popular media outlets and even a chart topping movie, and how they can live a life of luxury despite being caught and arrested for manipulating the funds of average people. This makes people wonder if the American judicial system properly handling white collar criminals in an attempt to deter this form of crime from being committed again? Researching this and developing a better understanding of how the judicial system handles these cases will provide myself and readers with a greater deal of knowledge about how white collar criminals are dealt with, and if the judicial system need reform in its process to handle these financial crimes. This research will also construct a stance for readers on one side of the argument where they can construct their opinion whether or not the process in which white collar criminals are sentenced needs reforming or is already well established. 

In recent times, these types of cases have been publicized more than regularly. A man is sentenced for over two lifespans for conning someone into a Ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme. Then these crooks use the best lawyers, while dressed in their million dollar suits to land themselves in white collar prisons where they can still play tennis during the day and enjoy better meals than those in state penitentiaries. This is what needs reform in the judiciary system. White collar criminals who believe they could become bankrupt or are about to be bankrupt can attempt to scam thousands because they know if they succeed they can make plenty of money to help them survive; however, if they fail they know that living in a white collar prison is far better than living on the street. In recent years I have written extensive papers about how white collar crime works and the many shapes and styles it can come in, now I wish to focus on the judicial aspect in order to determine if white collar criminals are sentenced to a life of luxury instead of a life of reform.

In an article written by journalist Dana Liebelson for the Huffington Post titled Why Nobody is Really Happy with New Guidelines for Punishing White-Collar Criminals, Liebelson writes about how the government has tried to fix the guidelines for punishing white collar crime, acknowledging that the protocol for sentencing these criminals is already too easy, and yet the American public is not satisfied with the change in guidelines. The article provides explanation for a simplification of the process used to determine how long a convicted individual should be sentenced for. For example, through the complicated equations used to determine how many years an individual should be sentenced for, a man at the age of seventy-five can be sentenced for over three hundred years for a simple investment scheme which is much longer than that of a sentence for murder making people wonder what the American judiciary system sees as a worse crime. Instead, reform can allow judiciary figures to have a better understanding what to do for lesser offenses and first time criminals.

Another supporting claim about the improper sentencing of white collar criminals is written by an organization called FAMM.org. FAMM is a lobby group that works to have legislation involving the sentencing of white collar criminals reformed to give the convicted a fair chance. For example, their biggest claim is that courts can use relevant conduct which, according to FAMM.org, can include "uncharged, dismissed or even acquitted conduct" (FAMM.org). This means it is very easy for courts to try white collar criminals in a matter that even the toughest of murder, rape, and homicide cases are tried. Evidence like this will provide well established principles that need to be looked over by law makers and changed so that trials are carried out fairly.

The central thesis of this paper is arguable because there are two sides readers can take. They can either agree with the current legislation and guidelines established, or readers can support the need for change in guidelines that will properly sentence criminals. Different perspectives from different sources allow for me to understand both sides of my own thesis. This allows me to create three supporting details for my thesis along with a refuting argument and why that argument is incorrect. Currently however my research question is a bit too broad and covers the guidelines on how white collar criminals are sentenced and the conditions of prisons they are placed into. In the near future I plan on narrowing the focus to just what is wrong with the guidelines judiciary figures face, and if this does not provide enough information for a complete paper I can elaborate on how white collar criminals are treated in prison to add to my conclusion.
