What they did – according to the article – was reprehensible. It included physical and psychological torture over a period of at least several days. Truly, it was awful.
However… they apparently did not cause any permanent physical damage (who knows what emotional and other psychic scars the kid may carry?); they didn’t break any bones; they didn’t actually “try to kill him” (although part of the psychological torture was to mock up a live burial, and I certainly don’t discount the “torture value” of that exercise). So, while the charges include “assault with a deadly weapon”, they did not include “attempted murder”. And they confessed to the crimes. Hence the leniency in the punishment. That’s the way the justice system works; when people confess their crimes and don’t make the state prove a case in an adversarial proceeding, then that is accounted for at sentencing. The story also mentions “new developments… that caused [the prosecutor] to believe this was the best disposition for all those involved”. I’m not going to second-guess the prosecutor on the case, who is on the other side of the continent from me.
But that’s not all I have.
@chyna nailed the answer in her response. “There’s nothing Christian about these men.”
And that’s a bone I want to pick with you here over the wording of your question.
I’m as strongly atheist as anyone I know. I do not “deny” God or gods, but I highly doubt such an existence or intelligence. I haven’t been a Christian for longer than you’ve been alive. So I hold no brief for Christianity here; I’m not here to defend it. Likewise other religions (including atheism as a “belief that there is nothing”). People are welcome to believe as they will, and I won’t argue with them unless they want an argument.
All that is by way of prefacing this question: Why is the fact that they were so-called “pastors” the most relevant thing that you can point to in your question? Why not ask about “these Californians” or “these Americans” or “these men” or “these whites”? I do not deny the relevance of the fact that they passed as pastors in some kind of church setting, so I fully agree that it’s a completely relevant detail – but it’s not the only one.
Like I said, I’m not a Christian – but a lot of my friends are, including some few in this forum. They’re far enough in the minority here that they’re not going to take over the site. The tenets of their religion are under attack all the time even in discussions that aren’t centered on “look at what the Christians are doing now”. We don’t need to drive them off with “look at these so-called Christians” questions that seem intended to single them out. Especially on two-year-old stories.
So I’m asking you politely here, will you please review your questions with an eye toward more generality? If you want to attack religion in general, then be my guest – I might even join in after the argument starts, and I might even join your side of the argument from time to time – but I’m hoping that you will stop bringing up specifically anti-Christian stories (or anti- any specific religion, in fact. Contrary to an assertion you made here several days ago, we do have Muslim and Buddhist members, or have had, anyway. Especially when the events are from more than two years ago to begin with.
I’m hoping that I’m not alone in this aversion to the specificity of some of your questions. I’m hoping that you can ask questions that don’t make me cringe for how others are going to be reading them.