This gets us into complicated territory, though. There are very few people who have ever actually been sentenced to the maximum CFAA penalty. (I'm actually aware of none.) The actual punishments actually imposed are often, I think, fairly reasonable.
Of course, there are plenty who have been threatened with the huge maximum by federal prosecutors, but this is no different from any other crime. Of course federal prosecutors will menace defendants with the maximum possible penalty. They want to extract a guilty plea, and it would also be dangerous for them to claim that any shorter penalty than the maximum applied, since they do no actually control sentencing. (Imagine the controversy if the U.S. Attorney told a defendant that he was only realistically looking at 6 months but the judge gave him 2 years.) It's the defense attorney's role to make sure that her client has a realistic understanding of the likely punishment, not the government's.
What's really needed is a replacement for CFAA (and, for that matter, most other criminal statutes) with more carefully graded maximum sentences, but I've never heard a realistic proposal about how such a law would work.
In the case of physical property the most common remedies for trespassing are either an injunction prohibiting future trespassing on the same property or a modest fine (e.g. $100). Applying the same penalties to the equivalent behavior in the computer context would be completely reasonable, but that empirically isn't what happens, because the CFAA is defective.