"This, inter alia, is because, like the respondent in our case, most of those involved in bribery offenses and other 'white collar' offenses are not 'prone offenders,' these are normative people with no criminal record who are not criminals in need of rehabilitation, and the chances that they will recommit offenses in general, and offenses of the type for which they were convicted in particular are less than full. Therefore, in such offenses, decisive weight must be given to the consideration of deterring the public, in the sense of 'so that they may see and see'..."
- The personal and family circumstances relating to defendant 2 as a mother of a minor with special needs have not gone unnoticed. Without taking these circumstances lightly, I do not believe that they justify deviating from the appropriate penalty range, and the following are my reasons:
First, the defense did not lay a concrete foundation that teaches that to the extent that defendant 2 serves her sentence behind bars, an adequate response will not be provided to her children, and especially to minor A, by any of her family members or by another framework. Thus, for example, the father of the children did not testify on behalf of the defendant.
Even if I assume that defendant 2 serves as the dominant mother in the care of her children and minor A, as the defense attorney claims (a claim that has also not been proven), this does not negate the natural and obvious assumption that in her absence, the care of the minors will pass to their father or to any of the family members.
Second, the words of the Supreme Court in the Sarandah case are also appropriate in the case of defendant 2:
"As for his being a custodial parent, it has not been proven at all that it is not possible to find a suitable framework for his children when the respondent will serve his sentence, and in any event, the respondent committed the offenses despite his complex family situation. If the respondent did not spare his children and did not take into account the consequences of his actions as far as they were concerned, why does he expect the court to do so? It should also be remembered that serving a prison sentence behind bars usually leads to harm to the defendant's family. Sometimes it is a minor injury and sometimes a significant injury, as may be the case in this case. This injury must be weighed in the framework of the overall punishment. However, it is clear that this infringement does not confer 'immunity' from imposing appropriate punishment on a person who repeats offenses, as in the case at hand, and it does not in itself justify deviation from the scope of punishment, but, at most, taking into account this circumstance within its scope."