Braithwaite objects to the imposition of deserved punishment even for the most admittedly heinous white-collar crimes. A presumption that imprisonment is the deserved sentence for such crimes would, in his view, interfere with administrative convenience and the wider public interest. Instead of desert, he proposes a utilitarian model which would allow penal authorities wide flexibility to consider crime prevention goals, the need for victim compensation, and other economic and social ends. The criminal sanction, however, has unavoidable overtones of blame and punishment, and if the wealthy white-collar offender is allowed to use his wealth to compensate victims in lieu of imprisonment while the poor offender is sent to jail, it appears that the ultimate crime is being poor while the crimes of the rich are symbolized as being less reprehensible than those committed by the poor. In all aspects of criminal behavior, offense severity should be assessed, the degree of culpability determined, and punishment meted out accordingly. While it may sometimes be difficult to determine degree of blameworthiness in the context of misconduct by large organizations, this does not justify abandoning the desert principle altogether in such cases. Under Braithwaite's scheme, the likelihood of being imprisoned because of the gravity of one's crime could be further diminished for white-collar compared to 'street' criminals. Forty-eight footnotes are listed.