The United States Justice Department is noticing what it regards as extreme variance and corresponding illogic in federal sentences handed down in a growing number of white collar fraud cases, and is asking for re-examination by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

A Justice Department report states that sentencing in fraud and other white collar crime matters "has largely lost its moorings." In support of that assertion, it points to the sentencing disparity made obvious by collective examination of cases such as the following: AIG defendants who caused more than $500 million in losses receiving one-to-four-year sentences when they could have received life terms; a Ponzi-scheme defendant who caused $40 million receiving a 25-year prison term; a securities fraud conviction resulting in a sentence of less than four years for a fraud resulting in more than $50 million in losses.

The report calls these widely varying outcomes "arbitrary" and states that, because a sentence seemingly depends on nothing more than one's luck or lack thereof in getting before a certain judge, the arbitrariness will "breed disrespect for the federal courts." It is calling for greater consistency.

In recent years, federal judges have been granted considerable freedom in announcing sentencing decisions, being required only to consult - and not necessarily abide by - federal guidelines. This move was made to lessen sentencing rigidity sought by many politicians.

The Justice Department is not unhappy with the overall results, but notes its concern with the sentencing in white collar fraud - and also child exploitation - cases, where outcomes in similar cases show an especially high variance from case to case.

What is being stressed are better tools to enable judges to differentiate offenders based on their comparative threat to society and the actual damage that they have caused.

Related Resource: www.nytimes.com "Rethinking Criminal Sentences"