I personally agree with you, 1000%....but mostly it's because I loathe KC and her sins.
But the other part of my brain is bugging me, reminding me that it is true that many first time offenders barely get a slap on the wrist these days. If it's been paid back and if it's the first offense, most people do not serve or even get any jail time for uttering a bad check. Part of my job is bringing charges on bad checks to the criminal courts, and most victims, including our company, don't care or want them to get jail time as long as they pay us back. It's the fact that they avoid me that makes me have to take it to the courts.
I knew JS was going to rule in this vein, because he has mentioned several times in other hearings that he recognizes that KC has no criminal record to date.
However, and I am not sure this can be submitted to the court, but if I were the state...I would have mentioned the fact that, in sworn statements, CA, LA and SP have all said KC stole checks from them as well. This means, she does have a history there. Just not a criminal history.
ETA-I think JB could have stated what he stated way more concisely and without the pity party-He could have simply pointed out that most people do not receive 5 years on their first offense (and the state knows this) and that KC has made her debt whole. Then, he could have shut up and let JS do what he was already gonna do.
