South Carolina Attorney Lawyer

Much of the literature, there is the so-called “injustice” if the rich criminals face a lesser likelihood of a conviction that those less well-To-Do oblige the same crimes. (1) Some critics have pointed out that this proves that the legal system is not effective. (2) Others have argued that if the opportunity cost of detention is on the account, so that individuals accused of buying legal services mean that the likelihood of a conviction to the contrary, the opportunity costs of sentences and may be the highest level of deterrence. (3) However, not even adequately state the case, why human beings, higher opportunity costs should be a face lower probability of a conviction, given that this analysis focuses exclusively on the formal commitment to sanctions by the courts - the time spent in prison, fines and legal costs. I will show that for many of these convicts, including those who have the highest income presentence, the largest penalty is in the form of a reduction legitimate result after their return to the workforce. Although the data provides information for a year of the postconviction result, but only single-year revenue often dramatic, weighs all other monetary penalties can be combined. May decrease in personal income, either because of a loss of reputation for honesty and integrity or because of loss of human capital, while in prison. All other even if the highly paid people are facing the greatest decline in revenue postconviction, they should also be given the unlikelihood of a conviction, if all criminals are always the same penalty expects to incur a crime . It is clear that the scope of a criminal conviction legitimate weigh more revenue for one year, my knowledge of the size under penalty of reputational risks. The next section of a brief overview of some arguments, why an individual income is likely to lead to a decrease of criminal conviction. Section III provides empirical evidence on the amount of the reduction in income legitimate reason to belief and discussions, why this underestimation without doubt the real loss of income. Section IV examines how the fines, restitution, and agreements, then in prison, according to the characteristics of sentences and then discussed, as the likelihood of a conviction must be based on income, if all the expected monetary penalties to be treated on Criminals. II The nature of each call is a violation of an agreement with an employer or against the legislation in force is planned for one person, quality results. If a premium pay for honesty, the loss of his own reputation and the resulting loss of quasi-risk locations will serve as a deterrent against fraud on agreements. This statement in the context of the reputation and the threat of loss of pay premium in the labour markets, was created by economists since Adam Smith [(1776) 1976]. (4) However, in recent times, there are problems in labour markets sharply limit the power of lost investments. Another hypothesis, advanced by Lott [1987a], France [1987], Lott and Reed [1989], and avoids the problems these days, the various preferences of workers for honesty. Workers, values of honesty, it is difficult to deceive their employer, because it lowers the level of their own advantages and there is the possibility that employers, workers can separate their utility can protect, there is fraud . (5) More reliable than people receive higher wages, simply because the honest man is a scarce resource. A criminal conviction potential employers, provides information about a person, preferences. The more convictions, the employer can no longer be sure that the person has not been falsely accused. The severity and nature of the crime should also include information on preferences in criminal law