What I meant is that the only reason the guy would go light on someone engaged in pedophilia is because he engages in it himself and identifies with the perps.
He is forced by the rule of law to do SOMETHING, so makes a feeble token attempt to enforcing the law because he has to. I don’t see that that it the fault of anyone but him.
I can understand why some judges are inclined to want to go easy on certain non-violent criminals under the idea that they can be reformed; however, this is NEVER the case with pedophiles.
He is forced by the rule of law to do SOMETHING, so makes a feeble token attempt to enforcing the law because he has to. I don’t see that that it the fault of anyone but him.
****************************************
I'm sorry to say that I think that you may be right. To think that someone could be so corrupt that they would rule so as to spare a pedophile rather than protect a child is horrifying, but it is difficult to imagine any other motivation.