This aspect confuses me. It's like the Judge saying to JA: ok, we'll clear out the courthouse in the hope that you'll tell us the truth under the implicit assumption that once the truth is told that the penalty will be more lenient. However, we only got to this sordid place due to JA's constant lying - first to protect herself, but later in repeated, bold contempts of the court, which only now would be admitted to? And, in this scenario, that is supposed to be a mitigating factor???
The logic is that all criminals, if only they come to Jesus and tell the truth after a lifetime of lying, will be forgiven (to an extent) in the State of Arizona. This is familiar to me: I do remember the nuns in my Catholic grade-school making that same lofty promise to me as a child, but not actually following through personally in their classroom demeanor. My hands may have swollen by being repeatedly beaten by the ruler, but at least I knew from the same nuns that God loved me and would welcome me into heaven.....yeah, right. Let's hope that JA can feel the same cognitive dissonance once the DP verdict is handed down.
