the words criminal justice is, in my opinion, generally an oxymoronic contradiction in terms. rarely is a crime punished in a way that is accurate. if the victim is a “good” person the sentence is usually higher than if a victim is a “bad”person, same with the criminal, if the criminal is a “good” person most of the time they get less time than a “bad”person. it’s weird and rarely blind, but i don’t think the courts like to have that blatantly thrown in their faces.
when defense attorney john scarpa told the court “A sentence of 25 years to life is an incredibly long period of time judge. Shouldn’t that be reserved for people who are guilty of killing certain classes of individuals?” he took it a bit too far.
the idea that one person is a better quality person based on things like gender, economic status, sexuality, skin color, nationality is such a strange concept to me, but it seems to be the rampant theory on which the basis of value is distributed. it’s not by the actions of a person that our society bases their judgments on, but what the person’s situations are.
i am glad that in this case the judge did what was right.