What is your reasoning for such a small penalty? Generally a person who is caught and convicted of crime X is penalized enough to dissuade others of that crime

What is your reasoning for such a small penalty? Generally a person who is caught and convicted of crime X is penalized enough to dissuade others of that crime. Which means that the severity of the penalty times the odds of being caught has to be proportional to the value of committing the crime. Since the parents were willing to spend tens of thousands, and their odds of being caught were low, the appropriate penalty should be stiff if it is to have the right effect. Now is it disproportionate to other crimes? No. Most states have laws about the theft of large amounts of property. With per state thresholds starting in the $1-$5k range, you can get a prison sentence for grand larceny of 1-10 years. So treat this as stealing from some other applicant the right to go to the university of their choice. I can come to this being a value stolen of tens of thousands in multiple ways. Starting with the fact that the thieves were willing to spend tens of thousands, and continuing with an estimate of the impact on that unlucky loser's future income. That makes it grand larceny, and a 2 year jail sentence is perfectly in line with crimes of a similar magnitude. While I am generally against how much the US puts people in jail, I applaud the fact that this case treats white collar crime with similar seriousness to blue collar crime.