A detailed analysis, based in grounded theory and critical social-psychological discourse analysis, was provided of a loosely-structured group interview with four offenders. The men constructed justifications for their offenses in terms of “breadwinning” for their immediate family and economic responsibility toward their extended “family” of employees and creditors. They represented their post-conviction decline in social status as being “dragged down” by envious “boys” in the State bureaucracy. They developed the position that those working in the professions were higher beings morally and should be judged on a different basis than “blue collar” workers. They positioned themselves on high ground, despite having been inappropriately sent to the working class world of prison. Positioning themselves as victims of circumstance, they blamed the economic recession or other circumstances outside of their control. These accounts were contrasted with those of less privileged male offenders. Although the working class offenders justified their offenses as a result of being let down by the State system, their representation of the State was different. The working class men talked about the State as having reneged on a social contract and, therefore, giving them both little choice and almost moral freedom to violate certain laws in particular contexts. However, although there was no mention of a social contract, the professional class offenders did talk about the government encouraging investment and leaving them high and dry when recession hit. 8 notes and 45 references.