"Presuming that the result of this conviction is that the USG can effectively claw back much of the proceeds of the crimes, then 5 years would presumably have t

"Presuming that the result of this conviction is that the USG can effectively claw back much of the proceeds of the crimes, then 5 years would presumably have the same retributive and deterrent effects." I can see a strong argument for same, or close to the same, deterrent effects -- it's a pretty straightforward marginal argument supported in the literature (i.e. the swiftness and sureness of a punishment has more of an influence on deterrence than the severity of the punishment). But I don't see how you can make that argument for retributive effect. The worse the punishment the stronger the retributive effect. In order for the retributive effect to be about the same for five years and 27 years there'd have to be diminishing marginal disutility to offender for additional years of prison. I don't think that's empirically observed -- prisons use the threat of additional time, along with privileges, as a management tool inside prisons. Whether or not we as a society should be satisfied with the disutility of five years worth of prison for this particular crime and whether retribitutivism is an appropriate measure of justice to begin with are different questions.