Hi! I'm the Devil's advocate.
Malygris said:
"it's my firm belief as a human being - and not as a jurist - that Daniel does suffer from a serious defect of the mind," Burge said in a transcript put together by GamePolitics [http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/01/13/judge-comes-down-hard-video-games-halo-3-murder-trial]. "This Court's opinion is that we don't know enough about these video games. ... I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea, at the time he hatched this plot, that if he killed his parents, they would be dead forever."
What the judge said is not totally unreasonable, for three reasons.
1. He said "we don't know enough." While that's debatable, it shows that he knows his following statements are an opinion rather than a probable fact. He wants further study, which is no bad thing.
2. He made the statements because they were his personal beliefs, but he didn't let them affect his decision as a judge. Comments like those of the judge are reasonable, if uninformed, opinions when coming from a private citizen. It's only if they are made as part of a legal decision that they are truly worrying. He did his job as a judge, and he exercised his right to free speech as a private citizen, but he kept the two from interfering with each other as was his professional duty.
3. He said video games might have had an effect on Daniel Petric because "Daniel does suffer from a serious defect of the mind". He did not say video games would affect a normal teenager that way, however unwelcome the implication might be.