Interesting arguments from federal prosecutors concerning why Felicity Huffman should get some jail time

Though I have not been able to find online all of the sentencing submissions in the college scandal case, the fine folks at Deadline have posted here the nine-page "Government’s Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum Concerning Defendant Felicity Huffman." The whole document makes for a fine read, and these paragraph at the very end struck me as especially effective:

Finally, other considerations also support the government’s proposed sentence of one month of incarceration.  In the context of this case, neither probation nor home confinement (in a large home in the Hollywood Hills with an infinity pool) would constitute meaningful punishment or deter others from committing similar crimes.  Nor is a fine alone sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offense or to promote respect for the law.  Even a fine at the high end of the applicable Guidelines range would amount to little more than a rounding error for a defendant with a net worth measured in the tens of millions of dollars.  See, e.g., United States v. Zukerman, 897 F.3d 423, 431 (2d Cir. 2018) (“A fine can only be an effective deterrent if it is painful to pay, and whether a given dollar amount hurts to cough up depends upon the wealth of the person paying it.”), cert. denied 139 S. Ct. 1262 (2019).  Likewise, community service, especially for the famous, is hardly a punishment — which is why many non-felons gladly perform it in the absence of court orders.

The government’s recommended sentence of incarceration for a term of one month is sufficient but not more than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing.  It would provide just punishment for the offense, make clear that this was a real crime, causing real harm, and reinforce the vital principle that all are equally subject to the law regardless of wealth or position.