Without getting involved in a discussion of the legal issues of what can and cannot be done regarding changing such plea bargains, as I really do not know much about that, I was surprised to hear that this morning a judge changed the terms of the deal with Olmert, in which he was supposed to go to jail for 18 months, unilaterally.

From what I understand, the judge decided that this is a serious situation and the agreement giving Olmert 18 months jail time is not serious enough to teach anybody a lesson. The judge decided that the deal must be changed, and since the two sides were not successful in coming to an agreement the judge changed it unilaterally.

So, what is the new sentence?

19 months of jail time instead of 18 months.

Really? This is the significant punishment that made it worthwhile to change a plea bargain unilaterally? one additional month will give deterrence and impress on others the seriousness of the crime in a way that 18 months would not have?

I don't know the legal issues involved, but this seems a bit silly. If added deterrence was needed, it seems upping the punishment to 3 years or 5 years would have shown how serious the situation is, in a way that 19 months and 18 months don't. And if it did not warrant such a change, I think adding one month does nothing and should not have been done