If a defendant has been convicted and then goes on to hold the court publicly in contempt gets a harsher sentence than someone who is truly reticent and has taken actions to attempt to restore their victims even before sentencing.. I don't see how justice has been unequally applied. The two defendants _are_ unequal. That's the point.
Now I understand your position and even agree with it to a point, the idea that justice is blind means judgment is without consideration of undue influence.
Like many things, balance is the best approach. Minimum sentences came about when the prior sentences were perceived to be unreasonable.
Don’t get me started on prison reform, though. Blind or not, US prisons are inherently unconstitutional.
Clearly he didn’t just build a drug website, he was fine ending lives for it. A slap on the wrist (even if his family thinks he is a good guy) wouldn’t deter him much, it would seem.
And the first judge very much agreed with your assessment.
[1]: https://freeross.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sentencing_2...