Who was the victim in this case? What was the harm actually inflicted upon them? Is there any evidence-backed reason to believe that there was actual harm done rather than that there might have been actual harm done?
Spoiler: nobody, nothing, and no.
Obviously it's good that this person was not sent to prison but it's only because this person plead guilty (read: was coerced into a guilty plea for fear of being sent to prison) of doing something that caused no practical harm.
If one would like to provide a different perspective, this is where I get hung up: Is there any evidence-backed reason to believe that there was actual harm done rather than that there might have been actual harm done? If no, why is any punishment justified? If yes, what is that (evidence-backed) reason?
Spoiler: nobody, nothing, and no.
Obviously it's good that this person was not sent to prison but it's only because this person plead guilty (read: was coerced into a guilty plea for fear of being sent to prison) of doing something that caused no practical harm.
If one would like to provide a different perspective, this is where I get hung up: Is there any evidence-backed reason to believe that there was actual harm done rather than that there might have been actual harm done? If no, why is any punishment justified? If yes, what is that (evidence-backed) reason?