I agree saying less time in jail for someone from an affluent background is equal to more time in jail for someone who has had to struggle through life does not make much sense. In fact you could argue the opposite.
One commonality with most (non-psychotic, non-sociopathic) criminals, blue collar or white collar, is that they go through a series of justifications as to why it's ok for them to commit a crime.
Someone who has never needed anything in life should have less reason to steal than someone who has spent a significant portion of their life enduring the stress of wondering where the money for the next meal, rent payment or car repair is coming from. For an affluent criminal, the rationalizations involve a sense of entitlement driven by feelings of their obvious superiority in being rich - a hold over from the puritan work ethic and the develpment of a belief that poverty implies moral weakness - an attitude that still pervades social policy today. That sense of entitlement just masks pure greed or a desire for ever greater power.
In contrast a person coming from an impoverished background conceivably could have slightly more understandable and legitamate motives to steal with rationalizations based on economic stress, feeding the kids, etc, a sense of entitlement based on a life time of hardwork for little pay, lack of opportunity, viewing the crime as "victimless" if the target is a person of wealth or a corporation where the loss will not noticeably alter their lifestyle, etc.
Plus in my experience, some affluent offenders have an underlying attitude that the rules do not really apply to them - that they are in some way above the rest of us do to their status, achievement and success - again an outgrowth of the belief that morality is linked to economic success. In my opinion a light sentence does nothing to strip them of that sense of entitlement or superiority and makes them more likely to re-offend.
Earlier comments to the effect that the finger folks were not model citizens and that this was not a first offense is an argument that applies to most white collar criminals as well. White collar criminals are less often caught and like most criminals have a history of rationalization and a series of progressively larger offenses until they get caught. I'd argue Lay also probably committed along list of crimes before this one.
