Other sources agree with the 28 year sentence. Here's one from 2013 regarding an appeal being denied, and as far as I can find it didn't go any higher.
Apparently at least one of them continued saying they were innocent after the plea deal (in which they admitted guilt), so a court threw out the plea and retried them in 2011, resulting in 17 and 28 year sentences instead of the plea of 7.25.
This was the one flaw in the otherwise excellent FBI and Pennsylvania Attorney General investigations.
They never should have allowed the number of jointly tried cases that they did. They used joint prosecution as a tactic, combining lesser hard-to-prove charges against one defendant with severe charges against another in the same trial, relying upon the strength of the evidence against one defendant to damn them both.
Regardless, their investigation was very beneficial in the long run. Low-level corruption used to be endemic in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, until the Federal government came to town. Following the "Kids for Cash" case, the area became the subject of a wide-ranging inquiry into official abuse of office.
By the time the dust settled, close to two dozen officials were criminally charged, including a state senator, a very wealthy commercial real estate developer, and two county commissioners.
Normally I'd be unhappy about this sort of prosecutorial overreach, but in this case I guess the lesson would be not to overlook the corruption of fellow judges. High school students are held to that standard; I think we can hold judges to it. Even if the co-defendant didn't profit as enthusiastically from the false imprisonment of children, he had to have known it was happening.
Agreed, however this tactic was also used in run of the mill cash-envelope and bid fixing schemes.
I too am pleased with the outcome. However, the law is about fairness in process, not fairness in outcome. In a case like this, the judge is often so disgusted by the defendant that they make up their mind and find a legal justification afterwards.
The precedent judges set in order to convict "bad" defendants can then be used in other less serious cases. From this comes the common saying amongst lawyers, "Bad cases make bad law."
For example, raiding a paedophile's home without a warrant or probable cause is satisfying, and often just in outcome. However, it is not just in process if the judge allows the evidence to be admitted. If a precedent is set in that case, prosecutors will take it as judicial license to raid more homes without warrants. The evidence from those raids can then be admitted under whatever tortured theory the appellate judge used to ensure the paedophile was convicted.
Remember, once the government sets a precedent, there is nothing to keep them from applying it to you.