Assume that a CPA working as an internal auditor embezzles $50,000 from the bank over the course of a year. The CPA has no previous criminal record. An unemployed auto mechanic in the same town who has tried to find work unsuccessfully for 18 months robs a bank and gets away with $50,000. He used a gun in the robbery to threaten bank employees, but the gun was not loaded and therefore he obviously did not fire it. No one was injured. The mechanic has no previous criminal record. Which of these persons deserves the greater sentence? How much greater should it be? In general, should white-collar criminals receive stronger or more lenient sentences than the more traditional criminal for roughly equivalent crimes? Be sure to clearly state all your reasons for the conclusions you reach.