He punched a man and broke his jaw over a quarrel in a bank. That's clearly some kind of personality disorder or anger problem. Blair's comments are ambiguous, she may have meant that he was religious and therefore ought to be let off lightly, or she might (as I suspect) have let him off anyway and was simply mentioning religion superficially. But why mention religion at all, is my question. Surely that sort of action reflects more on what kind of a person he is than ANY label - sikh, christian, liberal, socialist, etc. etc. It doesn't seem likely that a judge would end up describing a defendant as 'a decent secular humanist who has done nothing wrong before', or a 'decent wiccan who has done no harm in the past'. People would rightly say, 'what does the fact that she is a wiccan or a humanist have to do with it?'