can foster a public confidence in our judicial system. Explaining to the public that possession of pornography is not a victimless crime, for example, is a completely appropriate role for the trial judge and for this court. Likewise, we do not intend to suggest that trial judges cannot learn from experience or consider prior cases when seeking to impose a proper sentence. See In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, J.Q.C. No. 77-16, 357 So.2d 172, 178 (Fla.1978) (“Every judicial officer is the sum of his past. When he dons his robe and ascends to the bench, he is not divested of the effects of his previous training, education and real life experiences. He takes his official office as a human being, not as a judicial robot.”); Nateman v. Greenbaum, 582 So.2d 643, 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (<HOLDING>). On the contrary, we recognize that all good
holding that a new trial was warranted where there is reasonable probability that the false testimony introduced by the government influenced the outcome of the trial recognizing a judges duty to address the jurys questions holding that a judges conduct seriously undermined the publics faith that judges are as subject to the law as those who appear before them and justified removal from office recognizing that judges are expected to be influenced by real life experiences holding that bankruptcy judges are not bound by appellate ruhngs of single district judges even those from their own district