I was at a continuing education workshop once about how to make effective sentencing arguments on behalf of persons convicted of federal crimes. Teachers/facilitators were from all over buy my two included this guy Ronald Tyler - Faculty - Stanford Law School and a public defender from Baltimore.
They required each of us to work up a mock case and argue it. Basically, learn your case, practice and then stand up and say "Judge, take it easy on my guy because _______." to this panel.
I had a couple of arguments and one was "my client never had a father - his father was a drug dealer who was incarcerated and so, instead of a father figure in the home he had an empty chair and stories of "dad in prison." But for this, maybe he would have led a more productive life. Father's absence contributed to this guy's problems and maybe he's less culpable - take it easy, pretty please."
...
Ho lee fook. They didn't like that shit one iota. I got the old "you are aware that there are many homes with no fathers, same-gender parents, single mother, blah blah and your argument is not only false but it diminishes them. Your argument perpetuates stereotypes, blah, blah, blah."
I would love to tell you all that I turned the corner on those peeps and tied it all up with a nice bow but I'm pretty sure I responded something like this: