I like this New York Times article, linked to below. The whole article is a good read. Particularly the sections I snipped below. It talks about the inequity of sentences given to other people who weren't white or rich.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/us/felicity-huffman-sentencing.html
<snipped section:>
In the end, a federal judge in Boston sentenced Ms. Huffman to 14 days in a federal prison on Friday. She was the first parent to face punishment in a case in which nearly three dozen wealthy people are accused of using lies and bribes to smooth their children’s way into prestigious colleges.
Looming over Ms. Huffman’s sentencing were questions about fairness, and whether she and the other mostly white parents in the case would be treated more leniently than poor or nonwhite defendants accused of educational fraud. The issues were emerging in a case that has been seeped with questions of inequity — and well-to-do parents’ efforts not just to guard their advantages, but to grab more.
The judge’s decision to impose a prison sentence on Ms. Huffman, whom prosecutors saw as one of the least culpable parents, made it more likely that any parents convicted in the case will face at least some prison time, even if the period is brief and largely symbolic.
The judge’s decision to impose a prison sentence on Ms. Huffman, whom prosecutors saw as one of the least culpable parents, made it more likely that any parents convicted in the case will face at least some prison time, even if the period is brief and largely symbolic.
In arguing that the parents in this case should go to prison, prosecutors had pointed to examples of defendants like
Kelley Williams-Bolar, an African-American single mother in Akron, Ohio, who was sentenced to five years in prison — a sentence later
suspended to 10 days in jail, three years of probation and community service — for using her father’s address to get her children into a nearby suburban school district. They also pointed to a group of black public schoolteachers, principals and administrators in Atlanta, who were convicted in a conspiracy to cheat on state tests, some of whom were
sentenced to as much as three years in prison.
“If a poor single mom from Akron who is actually trying to provide a better education for her kids goes to jail, there is no reason that a wealthy, privileged mother with all the legal means available to her should avoid that same fate,” Eric S. Rosen, the lead prosecutor in the case, said in court.
“If we believe in just punishment,” he added, “we should not put the Williams-Bolars in jail while letting the Huffmans go free.”
Ms. Huffman’s lawyer, Martin Murphy, argued that most comparable defendants were given probation rather than prison. And he said that, just as Ms. Huffman’s wealth and fame should not lead the judge to impose a lighter sentence, they should not lead her to impose a longer one, either. He had argued in a sentencing memorandum that a term of imprisonment was not needed as a deterrent in Ms. Huffman’s case because she had already suffered considerably, by being publicly shamed, seeing her acting career crater, and facing the anger of both her daughters.
“It can’t be the case that Ms. Huffman should be treated more harshly because of her financial circumstances and her notoriety,” he said. [. . .]
<snipped section:>
"Issues of equity seemed to be very much on Judge Indira Talwani’s mind.
She told Ms. Huffman that what had outraged people about the admissions scandal was not the revelation that something that was supposed to be a meritocracy was not really one. Everyone already knew that the admissions system was distorted by money and privilege, she said, with wealthy students having numerous advantages over poor ones, including better academic preparation, individualized tutoring and college counseling, access to fancy internships, and basics like food and stable housing.
People’s outrage, she told Ms. Huffman in the crowded courtroom, was “that in a system of that sort, in that context, that you took the step of obtaining one more advantage to put your child ahead of theirs.”
She suggested to Ms. Huffman that, in imposing a sentence, she was clearing the slate for her.
After serving her time, she said, Ms. Huffman could move forward and rebuild her life.
'After this, you’ve paid your dues,” she said. “I think without this sentence you would be looking at a future with the community around you asking why you had gotten away with this.'"
since you are nitpicking minuscule typos instead of focusing on the actual content. 
