Is the judge saying that the worst crime is murder and since well educated and extremely well paid white males are way better than murderers (who also happen to be uneducated, poor and non-white)?

Years ago in  the country I grow up in, "life in prison" meant a 25 years sentence. It also meant that good behavior reduced the sentence to 17 years. It's way down from what we have now.

  I believe the overriding goal should be proportionality-- above lack of disparity (not saying that should not be a goal).

  To achieve true proportionality the sentencing process needs to consider more than objective factors which ahve been somewhat arbitrarily assigned fixed values and look at all the circumatances of the offense and all of the characteristics of the offender.

  It is perhaps easier to reach consensus as to what proportionality means within the the same class of offense than it is when comparing different kinds of offenses. I mean  we might find more people agreeing which murderer or which armed robber or which  drug dealer or which or which tax evader or which embezzler "deserves" a longer or shorter sentence than when debating whether an embezzler or an armed robber should be more harshly punished.

  For the most part, I think most people agree in the abstract that violent crimes deserve greater sentences than purely econominc offenses. A man who beats you over the head and takes $20 is viewed differently and more harshly than a man who converts  $2,000,000 of client funds entrusted to him to his personal use--despite the fact that the latter has a broader impact. Extreme harm to one person can outweigh significant harm to many.

  Even just the risk of extreme physical harm is a factor most consider highly relevant. The armed bank robber who doesn't actially harm anyone is going to be viewed differently than the embezzler by most people.

   Our current sentencing schemes recognize this and it takes a tremendous amount of loss for non-violent larceny related crimes to approach the typical sentences for violent crimes.

   Illustrating, using the federal sentencing guidelines the base offense level for robbery is 20 while the base offense for non-violent larceny/fraud type offenses is 6 or 7. At the most reductionist level, assuming we have two first time offenders and no other specific offense characteristics or other adjustments including AOR involved (admittedly a rare situation), a person who robs you of $20 simply by threat or intimidation without a weapon is looking at sentencing range of 33-41 months while the embezzler who takes $9999 is eligible for straight probation and the max guideline sentence is 6 months. This is comparing offenses at the very bottome level of their respective categories.

   Still assuminmg the lack of SOC or adjutments not described  and comparing in the  "mid-range" levels, a robber who brandished a weapon and threatened to kill you  but only hit with his fist  causing you to suffer a concussion, the offender would lilely be looking at a sentnce of 108 months to 135 months for that same $20. an embezzler who took $19,999,999 could be looking at as little as 78-97 months.

    To go higher than that an embezzler or perpetrator of fraud needs some of the following factors: HUGE amounts of money stolen; a great  have many victims; and/or certain other factors involved (look at § 2B1.1 of the guidelines.

  A robber on the other hand could go as high as level 38 even if no one suffered more than a minor injury and he got away with only $20. For a first-time offender,  38 establishes a sentncing range of 235-293 months.

   Now, its important to remember STATUTORY maximums-- for routine robbery that is "federalized" only because it occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of the United States (e.g., on federally owned or controlled property) the statutory maximum per count of conviction is 15 years-- but one can sometimes be charged with multple counts if he takes money or from more than one person in the same incident). that can reduce the disparity between the small robbery and large financial crime.

   On the other hand, we have to remember theprevalence of plea bargaining and also its limits. both classes of offenders can and frequently do cut deals that shave considerable time off the maximum exposure, but the ability of the embezzler of fraud perpetrator to reduce time is greater than for the robber in most instances. Robberies often have simple facts which cannot be obscured at sentencing in a manner designed to reduce enhancements under the guidelines but financial offenses are often complicated giving the ability to "fudge" the facts presented to the court which will be used to determine the guideline range. Furthermore, substantial assistance motions can be more likely in complex cases because often more people are involved and a particular defendant can get a sentence reduction (often very large) by ratting on others and sometimes just by telling the feds where the defendant has hidden his own  large sum of stolen money so it can be recovered. Robbers sometimes but less frequently have this opportuity.

   All of this ia a (too) long way of poinitng out that "white collar" criminals generally have to try really really hard to get "draconian" sentences. It is necessary to steal huge sums of money and engage in other wrongful conduct and then deny responsibility, refuse to cooperate, get convicted despite being able to afford a first-rate defense and even then sometimes refuse to disclose information priior to sentencing.

Over the years, one of the objections to the light sentences that white collar criminals used to get was the fact that it was a "slap on the wrist."  It's not unlike the ethical and legal violations of people involved in politics where, when caught, they immediately claim substance abuse and turn themselves into a clinic.  

Maybe I'm just blinded by my views of things but it sure seems like they're still giving less time to white collar types than other offenders.

Brigitte Mohnhaupt, 57, might be released in late March after serving 24 years of a life sentence for multiple murders, the Stuttgart state court ruled.

Five life terms plus 15 years in Germany for multiple premeditated assassinations comes down to only 24 years.  

  With the exceptions of very limited "good time" credit from BOP(only 57 days per year) and a modest reduction sometimes available for successful completion of an intensive drug treatment program (essentially can knock a max imum of a year off a sentence regardless of its lenghth), people serve the sentence announced by the judge. (good time is approximately 15%).

   Many state systems (and as pointed out foreign ones) require service of terms that bear little relation to the announced sentence and ones that only people familiar with all of the laws and all of the particular facts of a case can decipher.

   That's why we hear about judges announcing sentences that seem bizarre. For example, we hear "396 years" and think "overkill" but the judge is actually imposing 4 consecutive 99 year sentences each of which is subject to possible parole after a 1/4 of the term so the judge is merely seeking a term of years to make eventual release impossible and if he imposed "99 years" the guy would eligible for release in 24 1/4.