The theory of equal justice under the law presumes that all defendants none more so than any others must suffer the consequence of the law. Unfortunately, this socio-political philosophy is violated by politicians, entertainers, high-ranking executives, and billionaires dislocations than penalizes defendants who lack status or celebrity. Similarly, criminologists describe these influences as extra-legal factors, which are characteristics such as social status, celebrity, and wealth that should not impact sentencing, but often do so (Albonetti, 2016). Party affiliations, sports team affiliations, and corporate status are examples of the variables observed in the political sphere, entertainment sphere, and in corporate America that impair the fairness of the justice system.
Consider Elizabeth Holmes, founder of Theranos, who was found guilty of investor fraud. Each significant count charged against Holmes carried a potential penalty of 20 years, yet she served a sentence of just over 11 years (CBS News, 2022). Similarly, Martha Stewart served only five months of a sentence for charges concerning obstruction (Wisconsin Law Journal, 2007). In a more recent example, Sean “Diddy” Combs was sentenced to 50 months in federal prison on October 3, 2025, for two counts of transporting individuals for prostitution violations under the Mann Act. In addition to the sentence, Combs was ordered to pay $500,000 and will serve 5 years of supervised release (CBS News, 2025). As demonstrated by all these examples, a defendant’s celebrity status and/or available monetary resources can influence a sentencing outcome, potentially resulting in a lesser punishment, or an option that a typical defendant may not receive.
Political leaders also show how status impacts society’s interactions with the law. Donald Trump, in what is now his second Presidential term (beginning on January 20, 2025), is currently the subject of a lengthy and complicated criminal investigation. While he is presumed innocent (since he has not yet been convicted), his ability to remain out of jail while on bond, and to utilize expensive, high profile legal services, demonstrates how power and wealth can influence both the process and perception of justice (Wikipedia, 2025). In sum, these two examples lead us to what we refer to in scholarly literature as sentencing disparity as people can commit the same offense, but their consequences may be vastly different, depending on their socioeconomic status or their visibility as a public figure.
Empirical evidence backs up these conclusions. Albonetti (2016) found that high-status white-collar offenders received reduced sentences and did not serve prison time as often as other offenders. In a similar study, Hewitt (2016) also found that United States v. Booker (2005) established an environment where judges would exercise discretion in a favorable manner for wealthy or high-profile defendants. Wealth, celebrity, and legal discretion may combine to produce unequal consequences. This occurs even in a system, such as the U.S. criminal justice system, that is intended to deal with persons in an impartial manner.
Take-Home Message
The most visible defendants, whether they are public figures in business, entertainment, or politics, have systemic advantages that regular citizens do not. With the benefit of elite legal teams and the ability to leverage public opinion, money and fame often effectively reduce the impact of criminal punishment. It is necessary to narrow the sentencing discretion, clarify legally relevant mitigating circumstances, and guarantee equitable distribution of defense resources to address these disparities. Without several reforms attuned to the influence of extra-legal considerations, justice will be an uneven application of law favoring those who have status and power over those who do not.
References
Albonetti, C. A. (2016). Sentencing of white-collar offenders in U.S. federal courts: Empirical findings and legal issues. In The Oxford Handbook of White-Collar Crime. Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/41333/chapter/352363522
CBS News. (2022, November 18). Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for fraud. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/theranos-trial-elizabeth-holmes-asks-for-leniency-faces-20-years-prison/
CBS News. (2025, October 3). Sean “Diddy” Combs sentenced to 50 months in prison for Mann Act violations. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/diddy-sentencing-hearing/
Hewitt, J. (2016). Fifty shades of gray: Sentencing trends in major white-collar cases. Yale Law Journal, 125(4), 796–1149. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/fifty-shades-of-gray-sentencing-trends-in-major-white-collar-cases
Wisconsin Law Journal. (2007, December 17). Crime and punishment: Sentencing in financial fraud cases. Wisconsin Law Journal. https://wislawjournal.com/2007/12/17/crime-and-punishment-sentencing-in-financial-fraud-cases/
Wikipedia. (2025, October 16). Second presidency of Donald Trump. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump
Hi Trevor,
I really appreciate how your post highlights the idea of bridging the gap between the idea of equal justice and how it actually plays out in real life. I completely agree with your point that fame and wealth give people a huge advantage in the courtroom given the fact that it is often hard to watch high-profile defendants walk away with sentences that seem lighter just because of their resources or status. Your examples, especially the Elizabeth Holmes case, also show how unfair the system can feel as a result of these disparities seen between economic status and class.
Personally, I think what you’re describing goes beyond just sentencing, reflecting a deeper cultural issue where society often idolizes powerful figures and excuses their behavior as a result of their power. When celebrities or politicians get special treatment, it often sends a message that justice depends on who you are, not what you’ve done. This is frustrating given that it undermines the trust and resect behind the whole system. I think your call for narrowing judicial discretion is important, but I’d also add that public accountability and media transparency could help reduce this imbalance as these are also key factors that I believe to be important.
Reference
Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. D. (2017). Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis of contextual disparity in federal sentencing. Criminology, 55(1), 97–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12127