[dpark]

I'm aware of what judicial discretion is. I find the idea of using unproven allegations as input into that process to be pretty concerning, though.

> As an aside, epistemically, you seem to be confused about the meaning of "evidence." Evidence is stuff that causes you to believe something more. Evidence does not imply that there is a 100% certainty of something being true.

I'm not confused about what "evidence" is. The thing is that we have a process for determining guilt of crimes, and it's not "a judge thinks evidence is fairly compelling".

We have here someone who was convicted of a specific set of crimes but whose sentencing was driven by another set of unproven crimes. "Factoring in evidence" of those alleged crimes requires assuming that those crimes were committed as alleged, but such assumption violates the presumption of innocence. If the evidence is compelling, then try those crimes.