And in general his sentencing was about whether they were going to put him away for a defacto life sentence or not. And I'm not sure that more charges for the same crime spree would affect that.

I definitely consider it akin to theft even if people don't quite want to use the word.

And importantly even if you ignore the fact that people aren't being made whole by the bankruptcy's 100% claim, people still won't have gotten their money back for years. So people are still significantly harmed despite the criminal winning some illicit bets.

So as you said the commingling was a large part of their crime.

But they did commit a bunch of straight up theft of customer funds to pay for marketing, political donations or stuff like houses for the employees.

I couldn't remember the list of testifiers.

Importantly a critical property is that it needs to be damaging enough to be noticeable and neural matter has the unfortunate property that it heals slowly (if at all) so low level damage can accummulate.

They gave him a 150 year sentence for a crime on par-ish with SBF's crimes, because at 70 there is little difference between 20 years and 100 years, so you may as well go for the shock value.

Early release means your sentence is concluded and the only lasting impacts on your life is that of having been convicted of a felony.

Though this is a different video of the same author as the original video in the OP

EDIT: this is also made worse by the fact that the first few colonists should be farmers, mechanics and doctors (aka human mechanics), since all the intellectual work can be done on earth.

Especially after the disaster that was the evidentiary hearing where he offered some testimony without the jury present. (The judge wanted to see if what he wanted to testify was allowable)

During that testimony (where he was under oath), he rambled, misinterpreted questions, gave evasive answers and generally acted like he did in some interviews.

On the Friday, with the jury present he actually told his life story (to humanize himself) and answered mostly softball questions, before ending his direct with reframing deflections of the evidence and other people's testimony.

Now, I'm not sure the judge might not decide "If I'm going to give him what's effectively a life sentence, I might as well make an example", like they did with Madoff.

Their arguments might vary and ultimately might not be very good, but you miss every shot you don't take.

The judge also previously said, when asked about whether SBF could remain out of jail during just during his trial after his bail got revoked:

> “Your client in the event of conviction could be looking at a very long sentence. If things begin to look bleak … maybe the time would come when he would seek to flee.”

I don't imagine the judge will give him time to get his affairs in order from outside prison, which is something I understand happens (like it did with Elizabeth Holmes)