If this is true, and I do not doubt it, you are correct and this is not an appropriate sentence. All of the information you provided should have been considered since the standard at sentencing is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. These types of creative sentences are what compels the public to call for sentencing guidelines. Obviously, the Judge let her religion get in the way of her reason and that benefits no one.

Let her know the next innocent person this violent felon kills or hurts, the blood is on her hands.

The judges never stop trying. But such sentences are clearly violative of free exercise. And dual sentence options of the type Judge Michael Caperton favored, set up a facially inequitable two-tier system that is tilted toward believers.

In Michigan, not so long ago, Joseph Hanas, a practicing Catholic, was sentenced to a pentecostal rehab program that confiscated his rosary and forced him to attend pentecostal services. The district court upheld his claim that the sentence infringed on his first amendment rights.

http://socsci.colorado.edu/~bairdv/exercise_establishment_question_ACLU.pdf

Creative sentencing should have nothing to do with the imposition of religious beliefs or indoctrination on another person. There is a store near me where atheist and jewish employees are required to pray christian prayers or be fired. This is an act of violence against people’s conscience. I cannot understand this as a ethical act.

I am guessing the judge believes christianity will turn the criminal into a moral person. Most of our criminal population is already christian so I think this idea is discredited right off the bat. One look at religion today (and in the past) lets us know that religiosity is absolutely not a guarantee of goodness. We should stop pretending that it is.