Nevertheless, terrorism charges are ridiculous. Even the judge thought so. But years later the federal government appealed the decision and brought the charge.
Nevertheless, terrorism charges are ridiculous. Even the judge thought so. But years later the federal government appealed the decision and brought the charge.
I agree this was not “terrorism” - the only reason I can think of that mandatory sentencing guidelines applied was that Al Queda in their Inspire magazine written to encourage lone wolf Jihad attacks has long promoted the use of wildfires to attack the U.S. I am guessing in the post-9/11 legislative frenzy (I am not a big fan) this was codified into law by congress, but I have not looked at the history of the law. I think Congress did many bad things in hindsight post-9/11 as did the Bush administration. There are many changes to the law that are put into big sweeping pieces of legislation by congress so your beef is with congress.
I believe the Judge in this case retired shortly after he sentenced them the first time. The prosecutors are supposed to file appeals if sentencing guidelines are not upheld by Judges and appeals are a very lengthy process. They likely appealed the sentencing decision immediately - it then awaits a hearing by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who remanded the Hammonds back to court for sentencing within the guidelines. The sentence was not immediately imposed because it was appealed again and the Supreme Court refused to hear it (in effect they upheld the 9th Circuit finding).
There is nothing fast about the appeals process in any court - especially not federal court. They would have appealed right away, but it took 3 years for the appeal to be settled and I believe that is probably typical for a federal appeal.
Federal law is a hammer - not a scalpel. Always has been and always will be. Mandatory sentencing guidelines are put in place by congress to bring about sentencing consistency in all federal courts and prevent lifetime appointed Judges from doing stuff like this (state court, but you get the point).
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/28/nation/la-na-montana-judge-20130829