Q. In some cases, persons convicted of white-collar or corporate offenses receive lighter sentences relative to those convicted of street crimes. Someone who is convicted of embezzling 1 million dollars may receive a lighter sentence than someone convicted of stealing 200 dollars in a liquor store robbery; a corporation which markets unsafe products, resulting in hundreds of injuries, illnesses, and/or deaths, may be punished less severely than a person who seriously injures or kills one person in a street fight. Utilizing utilitarian, Kantian, and virtue ethical frameworks, are there any grounds on which we can morally justify more lenient sentences for white-collar offenses? Are there any grounds on which we could morally justify harsher sentences?