by TChris

Today's New York Times Magazine features articles that will interest those who follow white collar crime:

Former prosecutor Mark Costello asks whether harsh sentences are a reasonable response to corporate crime. Along the way, he tells some amusing stories. More importantly, he asks us to think about sentencing philosophy: whether it makes sense to destroy someone's life to make ourselves feel better, whether it's fair to give a break to those who plea bargain while hammering those who go to trial and lose.

As we prepare to ratchet up the ''war'' on corporate fraud with new shock-and-awe-type sentences, perhaps we should pause, or go slowly at least. Perhaps we should respect the muddle, the humane confusion underneath the act of punishing all criminals -- the violent and nonviolent alike. Nine years as a prosecutor taught me this: when we use force (here, a jail cell) without the calm of a theory, the result is rarely something we are proud of.

Also of interest: Bruce Porter's profile of Jay Jones, serving a sentence for conspiring to defraud investors; the insights of an economist who started a bagel delivery service, where payment depended on an honor system, into white collar crime (one insight: people farther up the corporate ladder are more likely to cheat on payment than those who don't hold executive positions); the role that corporate investors play in contributing to, or controlling, corporate crime; and an essay in pictures that provides "a glimpse of the human cost of WorldCom's collapse."