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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
