Larry Nassar and the Objectivity of the Law

I recently shared an article on Facebook that argued that Judge Rosemarie Aquilina crossed the line from justice to vengeance in her sentencing of Larry Nassar.  If you're not familiar with Nassar, go ahead and familiarize yourself.  None of this will make sense if you are not.  Assuming you are, let me say a few things.  Because my sharing of this article did not go over very well, I want to explain very briefly what I do mean and what I do not mean.  Let's start with the latter.

Here's what I am not saying:
1) Nassar's crimes weren't heinous.  They were.  He is a bad person and he deserves to have bad things happen to him.  I'm not sure what an appropriate punishment would even be.  Emasculation is not out of the question. 

2) The Judge shouldn't be incensed.  Judges are humans.  You can't expect them to be anything less when acting as a judge.  The overwhelming nature of the evidence in this case should cause us all to burn with righteous indignation, even if we also maintain the potential for forgiveness.   

3) Sexual assault isn't serious.  Sexual assault is a big deal.  It is an epidemic and it's not getting better.  Awareness is growing, but our country's attitude towards sexuality continues to be more and more corrupt as cultural plagues like pornography and sex trafficking continuously objectify women.

So, just to be clear, I am not saying any of those things.

On the other hand, here's what I am saying:
1) Judges must be cautious when expressing their opinions.  Humans have emotions, but we all must constrain them, especially those, like judges, who are in positions of authority.  While they can express disdain for the acts that the criminals have perpetrated, judges must be careful, not only when actually sentencing criminals, but also when expressing their just anger against them.  It is my opinion that Nassar's judge went too far when by expressing the desire to subject him to sexual assault.

2) The Law is to be dispassionate.  While a judge may have strong feelings regarding a case, he/she simply may not allow those feelings to dictate her sentencing.  Objectivity is key to passing judgment properly as feelings are rarely a trustworthy compass.  A judge is supposed to sentence a criminal based on objective criteria.  That is his/her job.  A judge who cannot separate personal feelings from objective sentencing should not be a judge.  Once again, while I don't believe that her sentence was unfair, it is my opinion that her judgment was clouded and she lost objectivity in this case.  Even if she didn't sentence him beyond the dictates of the law, the way that she expressed her wrath impugned the objectivity of the law in this country, if we have any left anyway.

3) Two wrongs don't make a right.  Justice must be served.  Government officials are put in place by God to execute judgment, so they have no right to forgive.  That is not their role.  However, executing a punishment that goes beyond that which is Biblical and/or humane is not justice at all.  Cruel and unusual punishment will not provide closure, nor is sexual assault the panacea for sexual assault.  A judge acting arbitrarily and recklessly is not the answer.  Granted, she stayed within the boundaries of the law in her sentencing, but expressing the desire to go beyond the law in such an offensive way is self-defeating.  I'm sure she's not the first judge to express the desire to go beyond what the law allows, but her sentiments, in my opinion, went beyond what is appropriate.

So, that's all I was really saying.  I was really just sharing an article I thought made a good point.  I am not supporting Nassar, nor am I extenuating sexual assault.  I hope that's clear enough.