Hey Halx, how is everything over on the wrong coast
?
anyway, I'll give you what I know of the background of how a judgement could be reached in this instance, and then you can decide if you would rather it the other way around...
(I'm going to nutshell this, but I've got a lengthier explanation in the poltics forum)
old days: agrarian economy + producers primarily consumed their own goods + laissez-faire capitalism --> legal formalism: law resolves disputes between individuals + intent must be proven to establish liability
industrial age: complex society + consumers interdependency on producers they no longer personally know --> necessitates new standard of liability
why: if standard of liability is too strict (producers always liable), then producers will not take risks
if standard of liability too lax (producers never liable), then consumers will become too fearful to consume
holmes and pound begin to argue for sociological jurisprudence
resolution of liability standard: what a "reasonable and prudent man" would do
attempts to have a middle-ground between too strict standard of liability and too lax
how this relates: attendees must have a reasonable expectation that an organizer will not do something stupid to jeopardize their safety, or people won't attend. the guy is operating dangerous items in a crowded venue.
I'm not saying he should have gotten more time, and I don't really have an opinion of whether this was too lengthy of a sentence. but now you have a nutshell explanation of the logic behind such decisions and you can make assessments of whether he should or should not have been punished given this additional info.