The new twinkie defense?

For anyone unacquainted with the Daniel Petric case, his father took away his Xbox 360 and this was the result (from this Times Online article):

"On the night of the shooting, Petric used his father's key to open a lockbox and remove a 9 mm handgun and the game.

Mark Petric testified that his son came into the room and asked: "Would you guys close your eyes? I have a surprise for you." He testified that he expected a pleasant surprise. Then his head went numb from the gunshot.

The teenager then put the gun in his father's hand in an attempt to make the shootings look like murder-suicide. When he fled the scene, he only took one item with him: the "Halo 3" game."

The defense tried for the "twinkies evil video games made him do it" insanity plea. The Judge didn't buy it and Daniel was found guilty. However, what troubles me are some remarks by the judge, pulled from the transcript (from Game Politics):
1: "Because you can shoot these aliens, and they're there again the next day. You have to shoot them again. And 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."
2. "But I believe there is hope here. I believe that it will start here and, uh, at some point when all is known about Daniel and what occurred here we will be able to achieve a greater sense of justice."

Quote #1 disturbs me, as you can guess, because nobody in their right mind can equate a video game to real life. I challenge that judge to pick up a plastic controller, turn on his TV, push those buttons and play hours of the most violent games he can find. Then turn around and pick up a cold, hard piece of steel that we know as a handgun and point it at a real, living, breathing person. Do that, and you will realize there can't possibly be any link between the two, real or fantastical. In addition, it sounds like the judge is buying into the insanity plea, even though he ruled against it?

However, quote #2 is actually the scariest of the two. Judge Burge essentially admitted that he did not completely know and understand what transpired that night. Yet, he just sent a kid to jail for the rest of his life. So reasonable doubts are being left on the wayside for expediency, or what? I'd really like for the judge to explain that comment, because I really hope I am just reading into his words too much. But if I am right, then I think this brings this judge's integrity into question.