Between you and the very similar sibling comment from micromacrofoot I've edited my original statement. I completely agree with what you both are saying and wanted to clarify that I was highlighting the contrast between these sentences not advocating for draconian prison sentences for everyone.

Honestly, I don't see how an 11-year sentence would have much more of a deterrent effect on others than, say, a 3-year one. She doesn't seem likely to reoffend, and it's not like her time in jail will pay back the people she defrauded.

It seems like this sentence (like many others in our judicial system) is based more on retribution than anything else.

Deterance is the outcome the courts were hoping for here.

She hurt money, especially of super wealthy people, and in this country, that is the biggest crime.

Furthermore, enhancing someone's sentence to scare the next person is not justice. That's sacrificial and gross.

Are you arguing against the whole idea of deterrence?

You wrote a silly comment, the normal punishment is a downvote, but as we want to deter others from doing so we will execute you.

> She doesn't seem likely to reoffend

Oh yes she does. You think she's going to be happy at a menial job? No, she'll be right back with a new con the moment she's back on the street. Only now her name recognition will make the con harder.

What do you base this on? Gut feelings or is there actual evidence?

My Google-fu is not working well with recidivism this morning, but there does seem to be some evidence it's true, e.g.:

Offenders who committed a crime of dishonesty had the highest reconviction rate (45.6%)

https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/reconv...

She doesn't appear to feel that she did anything wrong originally, and by implication will feel like she's a victim of injustice, so, very likely to reoffend.

The length of prison time seems to me to have multiple aspects to them beyond just rehabilitation or retribution. Often it seems like the purpose is to send signals in order to set social norms, to discourage future criminals, to remove threats, and fairness when compared to worse or lesser crimes. People often debate the rehabilitation vs retribution aspect, but I rarely see people discuss the others.

Prison is for punishment. Not everyone believes in the "turn the other cheek" nonsense. She has harmed a lot of people and should be punished for it.

> She doesn't seem likely to reoffend,

Given how long she sustained her con, she is now a veteran scammer and crook and she'll likely go back to scamming people when she's out.

To me at least. Risking a 3-year sentence to get a billion dollars might be worth it (assuming that I'm not morally objected to the "crime" in question), but 10 years feels a bit much.

It's not even the risk. Depending on the day you ask me, If I was given the option of living as a billionaire for several years and then spending several years in prison, I might just take it.

Though I suppose I personally would prefer the prison time first and the billionaire thing after (like in Chekhov's "The Bet"). In any case, I'm sure that there's a big fraction of humanity who would jump at the chance.

She got off with a relatively light sentence... She should have gotten double the penalty for all the damages she caused by her lies. At least one guy is dead as a result of it and she put people's health in jeopardy.

She’ll only do half though right? So is it really that severe.

If I understand correctly, this was in federal court and they don’t do early release.