"In terms of assessing your danger to society, the evidence forces me to conclude that you are probably the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in this courtroom. Your attorney has argued eloquently that the court should make you eligible for release at some point in the future. But from what I see, nothing in your life suggests that society would ever be safe from your behavior. One of the things that strikes me the most is that as you've grown older, your crimes have increased in severity. This crime was committed at a time when you were 43 years old. Given the trend of your crimes, uh... society has a legitimate right to be concerned that there is a serious risk you would reoffend and commit serious offenses if you're ever permitted to be released from prison."
I can make no sense of this judge. he is full of education and vocabulary, but seems absent of non-instrumental reason.
Steven Avery is accused of murdering one person in what seems like a crime of sex passion. How can that be the most dangerous person in society? How many stories can I find in Wisconsin about a careless human being who [kills 3 in a car accident] - which is not some random act of nature - but a human being who purchased a machine and climbed into it! Does Wisconsin lack arsonists who kill multiple people that are dangerous? Does it lack politicians who are obsessed with promoting war in Syria or Afghanistan?
What crimes have increased in severity in Steven's life? His 18 year prison that was based on wrong police identification? Is this guy reading some other person's history?
How can this be your conclusions from an entire trial, that you had months to work on this conclusion? It seems like pure and 100% bias - not based on Truth!