Jeralyn has a considerable amount of experience in this realm, and she'd obviously have a much better understanding than I ever would regarding what factors the judge might have considered, before determining and passing sentence upon Bob McDonnell. I tend to defer to her observations and judgment in these matters.

But given that the former governor's sentencing was solely within that judge's discretion, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt here, and I will not speculate whether the defendant's race had anything to do with his 2-year sentence being much lighter than the 6-8 year recommendation.

Further, I would offer that the obvious racial disparities in prison / jail sentences are the end results of some pervasive flaw in present standing policy, such as a lack of some standard which a judge is obliged to follow. But short of imposing more mandatory minimums to limit a judge's discretion, which I oppose, I can't offhand see how we can fix it legislatively, other than impose sanctions on bad actors.

Clearly, both the White House and the U.S. Senate obviously need to do a better job at vetting prospective nominees to the federal bench, and make a better effort to identify potential personality flaws like racism, ethnocentrism, misogyny and sexism, homophobia, etc., before these nominees are ever confirmed and seated for what is otherwise a lifetime appointment.  

Further, other underlying problems likely need to be identified and addressed by either Congress or the Supreme Court. (Considering the present make-up of both, I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen.) But the issue of racial disparity at sentencing will never be resolved on a case-by-case by individual judges on their own.

B) Governors can provide some quo for the quid that has nothing to do with the legislative process.

C) Legislators  can also confer benefits that are something other than "a vote."

  But,  I have found human beings to be far more complex than  can be conveyed by labels like "corrupt politician" or "bad cop" and so forth. Very few people are  completely bad (or good, for that matter) and that includes criminals, even most of the ones who have committed serious crimes.

  I probably would have given him a harsher sentence had I been the judge, but that doesn't lead me to criticize this judge for weighing the good versus bas as he did and showing McDonnell what the judge expressly characterized and "grace" and "mercy."

   Now, I do agree with the opinion that  often wealthy, powerful people are beneficiaries of grace and mercy that  poor, powerless people are denied. There is unfairness. Just one illustration is the judge touting the "hundreds" of supporters McDonnell had. A lot of people don't even really know hundreds of people and the people they do know are less capable of influencing a judge (for good and bad reasons). I'd also venture that judges, on a subconscious level, find it easier to empathize with people who are more similar to them as is the case with educated, successful defendants.

  In fact, these types of considerations were a  part of  the rationale for the making the sentencing guidelines mandatory. We recognize that humans have conscious and unconscious biases that can influence decisions.  Making the guidelines mandatory may have eliminated most of that effect with regard to judges rendering sentencing decision, but it came at a very high cost.

   One, while mandatory guidelines greatly diminish the ability of judges to make idiosyncratic decisions or to consider "improper" considerations, they didn't (and can't) prevent prosecutorial decision making to have very similar effect.

  Two, every person is different-- his crime is different, the circumstances are different, his "character" (as impossible as that may be to truly know) is different, and on and on.