Sure but the 'main thrust' of your argument is a lie.
It is taking a situation that DOES NOT apply here and acting as if it does.
Everything you point to are cases where a person has avoided or not faced punishment yet.
This type of case we are discussing is one where the person has stood before the courts, accepted responsibility, and got a lesser punishment, in the way most non violent alcohol/drug cases do.
They paid the price, made restitution, entered drug rehab and have moved on with their life drgu free.
You keep repeating '... but there are some fathers who would want the cases reopened and the most serious charges brought back up and also prosecuted, even a decade later', out of some warped belief that as long as the person did not get the maximum, the father would think his kid still deserves punishment.
I reject that, as it is wrong.
If you dealt with this actual situation and stopped trying to change to one where a person evaded the law and responsibility you would agree. You know that which is why you keep trying to change it.