Ok. I know very little about the law...but isn’t this type of re-sentencing (especially lengthening the sentence) rare? And if judge no. 1 says 5 years is ‘cruel and unusual’, does judge no. 2 have to justify why it isn’t.
And even the basis of prosecution seems sketchy. The son lit a backfire, in a (successful) effort to stop a wildfire. Whatever procedural violations he may have committed, does it rise to the level of ‘terrorism’?
It sounds like targeting/selective prosecution.
Yes, because usually when a law carries a mandatory sentence then the judge imposes that sentence. And the Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory sentences are not cruel and unusual punishment.
And even the basis of prosecution seems sketchy. The son lit a backfire, in a (successful) effort to stop a wildfire. Whatever procedural violations he may have committed, does it rise to the level of 'terrorism'?
They weren't charges with terrorism, they were basically charges with arson. They had lit fires on two prior instances, in 1999 and 2001, and in both cases they were told that they couldn't do it without a permit. In this last case they lit the backfire even though a burn-ban had been issued due to the dry conditions. They were tried and convicted for the 2001 and 2006 fires.
It sounds like targeting/selective prosecution.
Sounds like three strikes and you're out to me. Having done it twice and been warned twice they persisted in doing it a third time. Why are people surprised that they were then brought to trial?
Yes, this is what I want to know about the trial. Did they prove criminal intent for either arson or terrorism? Seems to me the most they could prove is negligence. But I’d have to know more about the case.
The whole thing from start to finish sounds extremely arbitrary even before you get to the additional sentencing after time served.
If this can happen to them it can happen to anyone who looks cross-eyed at the government.
Double jeopardy applies only to the guilt/innocence phase of a trial.