Interesting to watch the response to the surprisingly lighter six year sentence imposed on former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.

Some days on, people are still trying to work it out, reports the Houston Chronicle.

When Fastow had agreed to the 10 year sentence originally, he had given everyone the impression that he would not ask for a lesser sentence. But now what's coming through is the message that the lighter sentence was part of the deal for his co-operation. Or as prosecutor John Hueston told the paper:

"The government's position has always been that under plea agreement, the government was recommending a 10 year term. Then you have to consider what the defendant did and what the judge did."

In other words, it was all negotiable.

Meanwhile, the blogosphere has been full of speculation about what the lighter sentence means.

Peter Lattman at the WSJ law blog tells how Fastow's assistance for the shareholder litigation helped reduce the sentence.

Ellen Podgor at the White Collar Crime blog says the big question is whether Jeff Skilling will suffer a greater sentence. "And if he is given a greater sentence will this be because he decided to proceed to trial?"

The implication, she says, is quite clear. Co-operate or they will throw the book at you.

Attorney Tom Kirkendall has an excellent post at Houston's Clear Thinkers where he reminds us of Fastow's testimony concerning his sentencing.

Meanwhile, the TalkLeft blog raises the solid point that there is something very wrong with a system that allows a defendant who exercises his constitutional right to go to trial to get decades behind bars while a codefendant with greater or equal culpability and who cooperates with the Government and tells the Government's truth at trial would get considerably less.

Meanwhile in the mainstream, Loren Steffy at the Houston Chronicle make the point that the quality of mercy was very much the result of Fastow's co-operatoon