09-08-2010, 03:08 AM
In this case it works out quite well. Other instances it doesn't.
If it's a pedophile ring I don't think the sentence should be cut down. There is really no middle men per se in a pedophile ring so they are all guilty of their own actions. In the tiger case the woman probably wasn't very rich and she was looking out for easy money. She was basically a nobody in the business.
But in this case I think a lot of valuable information could be extracted. Putting her in jail for 20 years is paying to keep her alive for 20 years. Putting her in for 5 and getting the names of buyers and sellers widens the picture a bit and is less hard on government money.
If it's a pedophile ring I don't think the sentence should be cut down. There is really no middle men per se in a pedophile ring so they are all guilty of their own actions. In the tiger case the woman probably wasn't very rich and she was looking out for easy money. She was basically a nobody in the business.
But in this case I think a lot of valuable information could be extracted. Putting her in jail for 20 years is paying to keep her alive for 20 years. Putting her in for 5 and getting the names of buyers and sellers widens the picture a bit and is less hard on government money.