Who deserves the harsher punishment?

[Rob]

Criminal A: A high-school dropout who has been hired and fired from many a low-wage job. One day, broke as usual, he walks into a Burger King, pulls out a gun, and exits with several hundred dollars in cash.

Criminal B: A Harvard-educated stockbroker who has steadily gained prestige (and clientele) over the years. One day, he starts pining for that private jet he's always wanted, and decides to pull a scam he's idly considered for awhile. A few months later, with no fuss or violence at all, he's several million dollars richer, thanks to too-trusting clients.

Who deserves the harsher punishment? (just to be clear, I'm talking about respective length of prison sentences, assuming both men were caught)

[Rob]

Obviously Criminal B should get the death penalty, while Criminal A should be given a light sentence, for he only committed that crime because he was being kept down by the man.

It's strange that a matter-of-fact description of class gets you (and many other libertarians, small-l/big-L alike) upset. The bias you sense is your own, Bono; I think the statements are open to more than one interpretation.

And to clarify, the gun used by Criminal A was not fired at any point in the robbery.

[Rob]

Isn't this fun?

Yeah, but I think my scenario is a lot more likely in the United States.