In 2007, Ohio lawmakers passed that state’s version of "Jessica’s law" (Senate Bill [SB] 260), which mandates severe prison terms for sex offenses against very young children. Using data from a survey of Ohio judges administered right after SB 260’s passage, the authors found that a majority opposed the new law, as predicted. However, no relationship between political party preference and overall assessment of SB 260 was found, challenging the assumption that judicial "leniency" would explain opposition to the harsh penalties. Instead, quantitative and qualitative data showed that judges who disliked SB 260 feared the loss of judicial discretion and excessively harsh sentences for relatively less serious sex offenders. Opposing judges also perceived SB 260 as derived from cynical politics and popular ignorance. The potential value of consulting practitioner perspectives on sentencing enhancements and considerations for addressing moral panic–driven crime legislation in the long run are explored.