Good

To me, the most eye-opening part of the argument for setting the judge's niece free was: She is a good person.

That is against the modern principle of jurisdiction: Decision (on whether someone is guilty or not, and the sentence) should by and large be based on what is actually done.

Yes, occasionally the judge should also consider the purpose of the doing. (For example, slapping on someone's face for self defence - if that's at all remotely effective - or giving someone's chest a headbutt after being insulted - like what Zidane did four years ago.)

But, legal decision (and, in fact, all decisions) should never be based on whether someone is a good person - not because there is no objective definition for such a creature, but because a pure species of this kind (and its opposite, a bad person) does not exist.

Otherwise, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Hideki Tojo (alas, I won't name the fourth) should all be ruled innocent - because (they all believed) they were good persons.

Go read Dale Carnegie.