I don't really understand your argument. It's one thing to disagree with the law itself, but in what way was this case not judged on its own merits, and what agenda was the judge serving? I hardly think "I'm sentencing you in accordance with the law so that people will see that if they break the law they will be sentenced in accordance with the law" counts as some person agenda. I see no indication that the judge said or believed that the person did not violate the law or did not deserve the sentence according to the law, but was being sentenced merely to serve as an example to other people.
Except that the judge said specifically that he was sentencing him as a deterrence to show other people.
> "The deterrence is really to show people that despite the steps you took to try and recall matters, as soon as you press the blue button that’s it. It’s important for other people to realise how quickly things can get out of control. You are a good example of that, not having many followers."
Jesus, 18 months supervision and 150 hours unpaid labor, for a tweet by an unknown Twitter user, who named no names, and who deleted his drunken tweet after 20 minutes.
Did the judge have minimum sentencing requirements? If not, this was absolutely discretionary and absolutely out of proportion to the "crime," and is only "justified" by the judge using him as an example.
> Except that the judge said specifically that he was sentencing him as a deterrence to show other people.
Right, that's precisely the statement from the judge that I was paraphrasing as "I'm sentencing you in accordance with the law so that people will see that if they break the law they will be sentenced in accordance with the law." The judge is not saying "you didn't do this" or "you don't deserve this." The judge is saying "you deserve this sentence according to the law, and this will show people that if they break the law they will also receive the sentence they deserve according to the law."
Argue as much as you want about the law itself, or even about the judge's specific decisions within whatever sentencing leeway he legally had, but it's just plain ludicrous to say the judge isn't sentencing based on the merits of the case or is serving a personal agenda. There's nothing even remotely hinting that this is the case.
> but it's just plain ludicrous to say the judge isn't sentencing based on the merits of the case
I think precisely the opposite, and I think we're using different definitions of the word "sentencing."
He committed a crime by the text of the law. Yes, we agree on that. No one is questioning that. But all you've argued so far is that the judge came to the correct verdict.
The sentencing, in the other hand, is completely out of proportion to the crime, and is not mandated by law. The judge himself said that he is sentencing him harshly as an example. That means her was motivated to set an example, and is not simply giving him this ludicrous sentence on the merits of the case alone.
The comment at top you were responding to was arguing about the injustice of this exact thing.
