Where is there any evidence he did that? My point was that the one side of the story presented by Reason came from a clearly unreliable and outrage-seeking source and that judges are not inclined to throw the book at pregnant mothers under the circumstances claimed, more so if the defendant is herself a lawyer who would know how to argue her case effectively. Hence, the recommended grain of salt.

▲

JuniperMesos 2 days ago | parent [-]

Perhaps the judge in this case thought the same thing you did - that being a lawyer in a law firm that at one point took a public, pro-immigration-enforcement political stance makes you a "clearly unreliable and outrage-seeking" person, who is unsympathetic and deserves to be taught a lesson. I'm not familiar with Holtzman Vogel as a law firm other than the article you linked, but if having a byline on that article makes you think that this makes Parkinson an unsympathetic defendant, then maybe the judge thought so as well.

	▲	lern_too_spel 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Perhaps the judge in this case thought the same thing you did ... who is unsympathetic and deserves to be taught a lesson. Where did I say anything like that? I said that her story doesn't pass the smell test, that the only side presented comes from a very unreliable source who has a history of seeking outrage just like the outrage induced by this one-sided presentation of the case, and that both Reason and now you are gullible for blindly believing it. I said that it is very unlikely that she would be given that punishment under the circumstances stated, not that she should get that punishment under those circumstances. Obviously, she shouldn't if her story is to be believed. The whole point is that it is unbelievable.