Yes, we all know the problems that can come from absurdly soft judges, but, at the same time, whether it’s California’s ‘Three Strikes’, the Rockefeller drug laws, or any of the many other instances of mandatory sentences that litter the statute book, there is all too real danger that their inflexibility comes at the expense of justice. Check out the case of Jamie Olis, a former Dynegy executive. He has just been sentenced to 24 years for his part in an accounting fraud that prosecutors maintained led to $500 million in stock losses, a number that is, in fact, impossible to prove. Under Federal rules, he’ll have to actually serve at least twenty years. Now, financial crime can be devastating, and can ruin the lives of the fleeced, the swindled, and the robbed. It needs to be taken seriously. Found guilty, Mr. Olis deserved to go to jail. And for quite a while. But for 20 years, to be served, incidentally, in a prison system where inmates’ safety cannot be guaranteed? That doesn’t seem right. The sentencing judge appeared to feel the same way. Read the story and see what you think.

Of course, it’s almost impossible to decide what is a ‘fair’ penalty. It will vary from crime to crime, from victim to victim, from defendant to defendant. That’s why we have judges, that’s why we have judicial discretion but, if we are to reduce that discretion by legislating much narrower – and stricter – sentencing guidelines, here’s my test. If one of your close relatives (a close relative who you actually liked), or one of your friends, was to commit the crime for which that sentence was being fixed, a crime for which you accepted he should be punished, would you think that the preordained sentence, a sentence remember, that will be imposed with little regard to the actual circumstances of the case, was just?

I certainly don’t know all the facts, but I doubt if what happened to Mr. Olis satisfies that test.