Some thoughts on this. I get the inferences, played heavily by the JS article, but where is the evidence? If he bought this lingerie for a woman (and there are a lot of adult women who wear these sizes, including the one who signed the affidavit that she received the things as gifts--something the JS doesn't mention up high in the story). The logic appears to be 1) a teenage girl could wear this size; 2) he has expressed sexual interest in teen girls; 3) therefore, he was buying this with a teen girl in mind. Not crazy, but possibly a bit thin to hang a 3-year prison sentence on, given an affidavit to the contrary.
Yours are all reasonable inferences as well and I think we can also be reasonably certain the sentencing judge considered them and gave them their proper due. But bearing in mind the balancing factors the judge must weigh, it goes to the defendant's apprehension of the seriousness of the offense to which he pleaded guilty. Regardless of for whom the purchases were intended, his simply having spent time in the junior misses' department sends a message that should rightly disturb the court.
Post a Comment