-
It does seem to fit the guidelines as far as I can tell (IANAUKL).
(ignoring the super weird literature bit)
This, and his race, made it newsworthy. If the judge had ordered him to read material relating to the Holocaust, e.g., by Anne Frank or Victor Frankl, then the sentencing would’ve at least been understood to be rehabilitative, even if people were shocked at a non-custodial sentence. I recall there is some evidence that children who read more first-person stories tend to learn to empathise more easily than their peers who don’t, something to do with putting oneself in another’s shoes. However, this is a young man with strong conviction in his worldview, not a mere child. He might have had difficult personal circumstances that convince society he deserves a chance at rehabilitation, but not getting him professional intervention puts him and everyone else at risk.
You are reading a single comment by @Stonehedge and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Eseman
@Stonehedge
I'd love to hear a lawyers take on this. The sentence looked slap bang in the middle of the guidelines and in my non lawyer eyes seemed to take into account the facts of the case.
Not saying its not a lenient sentence, but can't really see how the judge could have applied a tougher sentence than he did, based on my non lawyer understanding of the sentencing guidelines. I clearly could be totally misunderstanding this.
(ignoring the super weird literature bit)