Should Marion Jones get any prison time for lying to the feds?

In yet another case involving the intersection of sports, steroids and suspect statements, former Olympic star Marion Jones is due to be sentenced in federal court next week for lying to federal authorities.  This AP piece and this New York Daily News article provides details of the sentencing arguments Jones is making in the hope of avoiding any prison time.  Here are snippets from the Daily News article:

Marion Jones has suffered enough, according to her lawyers, and she shouldn’t have to go to jail for lying to federal authorities investigating steroid distribution and bank fraud.  In a document filed Monday … Jones’ lawyers asked the court to give the disgraced Olympian probation instead of prison time….

According to a presentence memorandum filed by Jones’ attorneys on Monday, the five-medal winner at the Sydney Olympics should not go to prison because has accepted responsibility for her actions “without excuse, equivocation or any attempt to shift blame.”  The document noted that Jones has “suffered enormous personal shame.” “She has been cast from American hero to national disgrace,” it added.

The document quoted letters from friends and relatives who describe Jones’ humility, discipline and her approachability.  They also cite her “genuine kindness, respect and modesty towards all: and note her devotion and dedication to her two sons, an infant and a 4-year-old.  “Marion is essential to the care of both of her children in every way that a mother can be,” the document said.  “Her infant son requires her daily nurture. Her 4-year-old also depends on her.”

The full sentencing memo is available at this link, and it details that Jones’s guideline range is 0-6 months as a result of her plea agreement (in notable contrast to the much longer guideline ranges faced by Victor Rita and Lewis Libby, who were convicted after a trial of similar offenses).

Not surprisingly, the Jones submission emphasizes 3553(a) factors and the purposes of punishment.  Consider, for example, this paragraph from the sentencing filing: “There clearly is no need here for a term of imprisonment to deter Marion Jones-Thompson who, other than the matter presently before the court, has led a completely law-abiding life, without any blemishes on her record.  Nor is any prison term necessary to protect the public from Ms. Jones-Thompson, who poses no threat to the community.”  Also, the submission cites the recent Gall opinion and its emphasis on the import and seriousness of a term of probation with various limits on a probationer’s liberty.