Sentencing an individual convicted of identity theft for monetary gain can be challenging. In this case as in all others, a judge would need to know the extent and impact of the crime on its victims, the past criminal behavior of the offender (if any), the ability of the offender to make restitution and his or her remorse for the actions, and the likelihood of re-offending. As Lilly, Cullen, and Ball (2007) state, this type of information often determines the severity of a sentence handed down by a judge in the criminal justice system, regardless of the crime itself. Of special significance is the likelihood that the individual will re-offend or move on to more heinous crimes including violent crime. While identity theft is not in and of itself a violent crime, it is associated with significant damage done to victims and increasingly with other types of criminal activity, including terrorist offenses (McGuire, 2004).
Sentencing goals include retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restitution (Lilly, et al, 2007). Retribution requires that the offender suffer for the damage they have caused while deterrence is meant to punish the offender in a manner that is designed to convince him or her not to commit such crimes and to send a message to potential offenders that such crimes will not be tolerated. Incapacitation refers to placing individuals in a situation in which they cannot re-offend while rehabilitation seeks to change the behavior and attitude of offenders so that they no longer participate in criminal activities. Finally, restitution involves making amends to the victim and in the case of identity theft, restitution is legitimately imposed to offset the financial damage that may have been done to a victim (McGuire, 2004).
Deterrence requires that the penalties for identity theft be sufficient to convince potential thieves that such activity is not warranted. President George W. Bush sig...