Ilive, the examples you have given are obviously not of single parents charged with the same offence being sentenced more harshly.
"A young and able man with hopes for the future"
Said the defence. Like that's a defence? What if he'd been on the dole, a loser, a no hoper?
No, it isn't a defence and wasn't put forward as a defence, OP. It was put forward as a mitigating factor in relation to sentence. It's perfectly reasonable to put before the judge all the factors they should take into account, including the effect of a sentence on the accused's future and whether they stand a good chance of rehabilitation. It happens every day in every court.
I think you're very very naive if you think people don't pull strings, call in favours and as a result get a different result in court.
I don't think anyone says that. But what those who know about the situation do say, with reason, is that there is no evidence that that is what has happened in this case, because the sentence is precisely in accordance with sentencing guidelines and in line with sentences imposed on others for similar offences.
He can change his name, bleach his hair. Work somewhere that doesn't require a DBS check.
Is that necessarily a bad thing? Of necessity, if you work somewhere that doesn't require a DBS check, that means you are not going to be in contact with children and vulnerable people. Isn't it better that someone like this should be rehabilitated and become a useful, taxpaying member of society than that he should be prevented from working altogether? On any interpretation, this young man is going to have his life chances massively limited. Bear in mind that he won't get any school reference, no-one else is likely to give him a reference or pull strings for him, he is highly unlikely to get into university, and won't have a solid work history record to present to future employers. And because of his background, everyone in his stratum of society will remember what has happened forever.