> I faced 44 years to life, but when it came time to sentence me, the judge cited my family, my steady work, my character references, and most importantly, ten years being crime-free.
I'd give him a big break on sentencing for those reasons, too.
I am going to say something I know will be controversial: none of those should matter.
For one, his ability to evade justice for 10 years should not allow him to get off easier.
Nor should things like having a family. Why should I go to prison for longer just because I decided not to have kids?
As for working: that's what you're supposed to do. You don't get extra credit for that.
Everyone is willing to discuss racial disparities in sentencing. But what about family structure disparities? What about people who want to go live in the woods Unabomber style? Sentencing should not be a popularity contest. When someone is pointing a gun at you, you probably would not care either.
Not just having kids, but taking care of them. Because it demonstrates you are taking care of more than yourself.
If you were the caretaker for an elderly parent, or you foster animals, or you mentored other at risk kids, I think it would also cast you in a similar light.
It is for both but rehabilitation and punishment. But in this case I do agree but let us say he had panicked shot and killed someone during that robbery.
Even though he would have lived his life the same most people would probably feel uneasy about a completely suspended prison sentence even if the man and his actions afterwards might have been exactly the same and that he would be no smaller risk to society after going to prison, possibly the opposite.
But we (or I at least) would not feel it was not fair unless he was punished by prison.
I'd give him a big break on sentencing for those reasons, too.