The BBC said she faces upto 20 years, but predicts she will get a much lower sentence because she has no criminal history and she is a first time mother with a young child.

Google "federal sentence table". The "no criminal history" thing is directly expressed on the chart (she'll be sentenced from the first column); each cell in the table is a range of months, and the first-time mother thing might get her the lower end of that range. The crimes she's convicted of are so severely sentenced that it's hard to see her not getting double digit years.

With all the charges grouped, including the conspiracy charge, we'd be looking at an offense level around 35 --- 168 to 210 months.

Federal judges must calculate the guidelines and consider them when determining a sentence, but are not required to issue sentences within the guidelines. So I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a downward departure from the guidelines.

I'm not saying I agree there should be a downward departure (imo, her pregnancy came across as a "Pregnancy Of Convenience"), just that there could be.

A sentence of 10 years or longer seems excessive in my personal opinion as well, but I can't help thinking that the baby only entered the picture when she was already facing those criminal charges, so there might have been an element of calculation involved.

She is in her late 30s, she was probably going to have a child either way, just good timing.

She has a demonstrated record of cold, amoral manipulation and calculation. Just my opinion, but I think the child is a clear effort to increase sympathy. I would like to be wrong, but I think the truth is more sad and horrifying than most decent people can or want to imagine.

Given her cold rationality, the timing of the child may be her lawyer's advice, to get her sentence reduced. No consideration for the actual baby, how it would be raised given the circumstances...

True, her age may have factored into her decision.

I feel like having a baby when you know you have a high likelihood of going to jail is even more evidence of her selfish mindset.

the alternative is maybe never having a baby.

And?

Never having a baby seems better than having a baby you won't be able to be a mother to for 10-20 years. It's not unlikely the kid would hate you when you get out of prison.

Ideal no, but she isn't going to be in prison 20 years, most likely not 10 either. Kid will be raised by father and family, won't be poor, and it is unlikely kid will hate his mom.

The poor baby

Why would having children be a factor? Would the same apply for a man with a young child?

you should expect leniency if you had a young child and it was a first time offense.

I would also expect leniency if you got the child after you were charged, even though that implies people could just get kids to look for leniency, there is the idea that once someone gets a child they calm down and become more cautious. Maybe not so important in cases of non-violent, monetary crime.

However as it is commonly thought in society, and backed up by science ( https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/o... ), that women take on a more nurturing role for the children and the absence of a mother would be more traumatizing (statistically, in the case of my son he freaks out if I leave but doesn't care much about the mother), the father can expect less leniency than a woman.

Why should having a child give any sort of leniency? Actually the aim of harming that child should increase the penalty. I believe in equality, giving discounts on crimes because family just seems absolutely unquestionably evil and immoral.

If we really think of it, shouldn't single person get leniency because him being in jail doesn't hurt others. So that can be considered in thinking about planning of crime. As others clearly aimed to hurt their families and friends by getting in jail in first place.

Why would a woman get treated better just cause she's a woman?

Well, because she's a rich white woman. If she were a poor black woman, having children would probably result in worse treatment. Having children after being charged might get her child taken away; clearly someone who has a child while facing significant prison time would be an unfit mother.

Because you are now punishing her, and the child who will be deprived of a mother. <- not endorsing this, but that's what may be considered.

“Acted an criminal act with aim to harm the child.” Don’t see anyone suing her for that one - as an evil human being, of course- except for online underdogs screaming “crusify her!”

Agreed. Also the federal government is generally keen on appearing “tough on tech” these days