Oh absolutely, but I realized another way to think about SBF's sentence: Imagine this scenario: 1. Scammer defrauds a person for $$$ 2. Scammer is caught

Oh absolutely, but I realized another way to think about SBF's sentence: Imagine this scenario: 1. Scammer defrauds a person for $$$ 2. Scammer is caught 3. Scammer goes to jail 4. Scammer gets out 5. Scammer goes back to step 1 vs 1. Scammer defrauds 5 people <repeat the same sequence as above and then return to defrauding 5 people> vs 1. Scammer defrauds 50 people until you get to thousands of people and companies a la SBF The first case of one scam at a time will end up spending more time in jail than SBF despite defrauding far fewer people. Is that fair/just? We have plenty of other crimes where we consider the penalty for many crimes at once to be the same (if not worse) than count * penalty, so it's not just.