Ideally, punishments shouldn't exist just to please the bloodthirsty mobs, although sport does always run that risk. Still, there ought to be a purpose beyond that. Obviously, a life ban offers nothing in the way of reform. No punishment effectively prevents future contrivance, as it is not a case of the players dealing with each other; there is a third party. The greatest value is as a deterrent. If that's the sole purpose, one must question how much of a deterrent effect is possible.
However, I can't see how leniency could take place, once a player is formally charged by the ACSU. Either a player is found guilty or not guilty, there does not appear to be a plea bargaining option. Anyone found guilty of corruption by the Anti-Corruption Tribunal will be banned for at least five years; I guess that is lenient compared to a life ban, but we're yet to see a life ban that actually lasts more than 10 years. Anyone else feel that the term has lost all meaning?
As much as it seems like the main issue, dealing with the players is really very little of it, the tip of the iceberg, if you will. Whoever is found guilty, the real question remains: what causes corruption and what can be done to stop those causes? Are people like Amir the cause? Hardly. Gambling on cricket is as old as cricket itself, so it goes without saying that the people with the money are the cause. If you ban the current Pakistan team, even exclude all of Pakistan, it won't stop it and it would probably be to the greater detriment of cricket. In the nineties, was it just the Pakistanis or were a couple other nations involved? It is guaranteed that there will be more people vulnerable to faceless men with endless pockets (and spare jackets).
He was old enough to take the money and went through with it, five year ban or perhaps the most apt punishment would be a ban equal to how long it would take him to earn his sin money................................
