Who deserves the harsher punishment?

[Earth]

If I'm assuming A hasn't shot or killed anyone, then B. The latter's victims most likely outnumber As.

[Earth]

The threat of violence against the store clerk was very real, harrowing and should be punished accordingly. The store clerk may well need therapy to overcome their fears caused by this robbery. You shouldn't have to look into the eyes of a gunman merely for doing your job.

The scam was probably some sort of 'get-rich-quick' scheme peddled to gullible people who parted with their money on the promise of, I don't know, 110% interest rates or something like that. I pity them, but it was their choice to part with their money. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Criminal B is scum who preyed upon the gullible. Criminal A is scum who threatened violence against the defenceless. Of the two, Criminal A's crimes of violence are more likely to escalate and society should be protected from him. Criminal A should receive a harsher penalty.

Your entire rational for A getting a harsher punishment seems to be wrapped around the notion of Bs victims as being gullible. Neither situation is black/white. Both should be punished for the crimes they've committed, but don't downplay fraud as "buyer beware/just desserts".

Let's play another game. Who deserves the harsher punishment?

Obviously person B. A is self defense.

[Earth]

The argument most seem to be making is that burglary is worse than a mugging because the burglar has robbed more people than the mugger.

That's not what I'm saying at all, since there's no way of knowing or inferring that since the situations are deliberately vague. My rational is dependent on the fact that in situation, the original A, no one was harmed, other than psychologically. B, on the other hand, bilked his clients out of money. It leads me to believe the consequences of Bs actions are of greater harm, with farther reach. Both deserve prison time, but on these grounds, since I have nothing else to work with, B should get a longer sentence compared to A.

I'm trying to say that even the threat of violence makes the first crime worse.

I don't consider the threat of violence to be of the same or greater gravity as actual violence, regarding your example. B obviously commits the crime in cold blood, while A kills in self defense. I don't see how you could link scenario A (bob's post) with your scenario if the two situations differ so much, other than setting. A is a crime in bob's scenario, while your A  is justifiable.

[Earth]

First of all, if B is the wealthy success you say he is -- his "crime" is highly unlikely.  Wealthy people are hard working members of the earning class. 

Madoff?

Theirs are not the faces you see on the evening news for holding up banks or liquor stores or stabbing their "baby daddy".

That's true. Different class, different crimes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You lost me at "left wing media", and the dismissal of the idea that the rich are possibly greedy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The non-existence of the predatory rich in your post, even as a possibility, is astounding.

[Earth]

I'm kind of amazed and certainly saddened that so many people here are willing to overlook the threat of violence, especially in a situation where that threat often turns to action.  Is it because you guys like the (presumably) rich investors and dislike the poor guy working behind the counter at the 7-11?

We aren't talking about all situations, but the one described above, so it's irrelevant to bring up "often turns to". My decision, most likely others that feel the same, consider the gravity of scenario B to be worse than a robbery without physical harm.