The Los Angeles Times explains why today's crop of accused corporate executives are finding plea agreements preferable to the risk of going to trial--under the federal sentencing guidelines, they could be facing sentences of thirty years to life if convicted at trial.

"Even though the plea agreements still hold out the prospect of serious jail time, defense attorneys say these kinds of deals are becoming harder to turn down as federal officials, using tough new sentencing rules, threaten targets in corporate scandals with prison terms of 25 years, 30 years or more."

Faced with those kinds of numbers, many choose to plead guilty--even when they are innocent. They just can't take the risk. "Defense attorneys say prosecutors in major corporate corruption cases are proposing plea agreements containing 15-to-20-year sentences in negotiations with top executives who the defense contends never had any intent to commit crimes."

"What worries me is that there will be some white-collar guys who won't plead to an agreement like that, go to trial and get a 30-year sentence they don't deserve," [Washington lawyer Bob] Bennett said. "These draconian sentences heretofore have been reserved for the worst of the worst — drug kingpins and multiple murderers."

Actually, not just drug kingpins face those sentences. We have plenty of low-level clients who face them as well. Even a young, first offender can get 30 years to life under the sentencing guidelines if the offense involves a substantial amount of crack.

Bush and Ashcroft's love affair with building more prisons to house more low-level offenders and maintain our reputation as a Prison Nation will undoubtedly continue for the next two years--and longer if Bush is re-elected. Now that the rich will also fall prey to this Administration's mania, perhaps the wealthy will make substantial funds available to groups like Families Against Mandatory Minimums who have been working tirelessly for years to make the public see the folly of this response to crime.