Reply #55: Ask them to consider the different collective costs of white collar crime

[izzybeans]

versus petty theft. Your confusing an intersection of class and culture for an essential characteristic of a social fiction, race.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/white_collar.html

The upper class costs us more as a nation for their crimes than the folks your debate seems to think have a problem. Crimes of necessity versus crimes of greed. Take your pick.

If you look through the other end of the telescope you'll see that most of these "white collar" folks are white, per capita, so...would that mean there is some essential characteristics about white folks and corporate crime? Or is it better to think in terms of class? Which class causes the greatest net loss to the community? Upper or Lower?

This should be the focus. Turn them away from Bill bennet, the premise is flawed to begin with. It makes no essential difference since "race" isn't explanatory of "crime". Race is actually an indicator of social class within the context of a racist society. It's as if Storks really cause spikes in the birth rate. Something other than race is explaining crime, that something explains both crime and the distribution of social capital between racial groups=class. Just as a change in season explains both migratory patterns for storks and mating patterns for Baltic peoples, so goes with race, crime and class.