I think it's easy to see how the "choice" in this situation comes off as a request to "buy forgiveness" on behalf of the perpetrator. The harm that was done is

I think it's easy to see how the "choice" in this situation comes off as a request to "buy forgiveness" on behalf of the perpetrator. The harm that was done is not primarily financial, financial restitution would never "make it right" at an emotional level, and undermines the desire to quarantine individuals that have proven themselves to be a danger to others. The choice would be insulting to many people, and directly opposed to common ideals about justice. In light of that, calling it "empowerment" comes off as a little tone-deaf, and I doubt the response would be any different if the judge had unilaterally chosen X years + Y dollars, but it later came to light that X+N years and 0 dollars had been an equally valid option.