Posted on 01/04/2016 12:47:14 PM PST by taraytarah
Amid peaceful protests and the occupation of a national wildlife refuge building in Oregon, Glenn Beck said Monday that ranchers Steven and Dwight Hammond should not go to jail again but the judge who originally sentenced them should.
"They received their sentence. They went and they served their sentence. They paid their due, as according to a judge," Beck said on The Glenn Beck Radio Program. "If the judge broke the law, then the judge needs to go to jail."
Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, have been charged with arson for fires they said they lit in 2001 and 2006 in order to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires. The fires crossed into federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, but the Hammonds ultimately contained and extinguished them.
Three years ago, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who is now retired, sentenced the father, Dwight Hammond, to three months in prison and the son, Steven Hammond, to one year.
Hogan had reduced the Hammonds' sentences from the five-year minimum required because he said it would have violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, adding that it would have been "grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here."
In October of last year, after both men had served their sentences, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken deemed the father-son duo's time served to be too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison Monday, Jan. 4, to serve out the remainder of the five-year minimum sentence...
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
“Beck is so stupid it hurts.”
Suggest you research the double jeopardy clause in the constitution that protects individuals against multiple punishments. Once a judge sentences a defendant or dismisses a case outright it’s final.
Can anyone contact the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif???
Care to fill in some blanks?
They did and I assume the defense counsel was also handling the appeals, which were turned down at the 9th District and the Supreme Court levels.
Beck is Stupid? He moved to Texas..
where do you live??
Thought soetoro and the DOJ were against minimum sentences.
Three years ago, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who is now retired, sentenced the father, Dwight Hammond, to three months in prison and the son, Steven Hammond, to one year.
Hogan had reduced the Hammonds' sentences from the five-year minimum required because he said it would have violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, adding that it would have been "grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here."
In October of last year, after both men had served their sentences, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken deemed the father-son duo's time served to be too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison Monday, Jan. 4, to serve the five-year sentence.
And what for? when a wildfire threatened, he set a back fire to protect his property.
When invasive, noxious vegetation threatened...he burned it off.
They went after him because he did this on federal land they had leased to him, and some of it got off of the lease onto land that was not being used at all.
This was a gross miscarriage of justice from the get go...and at least the original judge tried to mitigate it.
now they are putting the hammer down after the original sentence was served.
This should be stood against...not to mention all the other ranchers that the Federal government is trying to force out of the area through the expansion of their wildlife refuge.
It is a different set of conditions...but it is the same playbook they used in Klamath in 2001.
And it should be resisted.
If the ex-cons had been members of a privileged minority, they would not be back in jail now.
bflr
Agreed. Well said, Jeff.
Departures from Federal Sentencing Guidelines, either up or down, are appeal-able by either People or Defs.
Either way, the revised and expanded sentences stand unless stayed for an appeal.
Instant case Defs would probably appeal or have probably appealed, but the matter of revisable sentences is settled law, and the time for appeal of the original conviction is probably well passed.
Defs are SOL and the gunslingers will only make it worse for them.
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?
Actually it protects individuals from being tried twice for the same crime. In this case there was one trial, one verdict, one sentence, one sentence overturned and replaced with the required minimum. The Hammonds will get credit for time served.
I think they are but they're still on the books.
Even in cases where I would have approved of a longer sentence (a #BlackThugsMatter arsonist instead of a rancher doing a controlled burn), I would not approve of this sort of governmental exercise of power. Once a federal judge sentences a "criminal" and the convicted "criminal" serves his sentence, it's time to let it go.
Beck lives in this area around Dallas. I recall his Fox program when he decided he should get out of the New York area. That was during the time he began to be a prepper. He could see staying in that area was no place to be. He also became a friend of David Barton who lives here in Texas. Beck made a good move to get out of there and put his roots down here in Texas.
Damn straight!
This screams of injustice.
With the help of the wife of the wildlife refuge.
The prosecution appealed the sentence (which the Government is allowed to do if the sentence is illegal, e.g., less than the statutory mandatory minimum). The Court of Appeals ordered the resentencing and sent the case back down to Judge Aiken.
Three years ago, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who is now retired, sentenced the father, Dwight Hammond, to three months in prison and the son, Steven Hammond, to one year.
Hogan had reduced the Hammonds' sentences from the five-year minimum required because he said it would have violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, adding that it would have been "grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here."
In October of last year, after both men had served their sentences, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken deemed the father-son duo's time served to be too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison Monday, Jan. 4, to serve the five-year sentence.
Well, actually, no, this doesn't "say it all." Certain other salient points that deserve a mention:
1. As was noted, the crime of which the Hammonds were found guilty, by a jury, carried with them a (federal) statutory "minimum" sentence of five years. The original sentencing judge, Hogan, found that imposition of that statutorily-compelled minimum sentence would violate the Eighth Amendment.
2. Subsequently, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Judge Hogan's Eighth Amendment-based deviation from the statutorily-compelled minimum sentence was itself unlawful and vacated the sentences that Judge Hogan had imposed on the Hammonds. Their case was then remanded back to the U.S. district court for re-sentencing consistent with federal law.
3. In the interim, Judge Hogan had retired from the U.S. district court, and Judge Aiken had been appointed the new chief judge. Judge Aiken did not unilaterally "deem" the original sentences "too short" but, rather, applied the law as the Ninth Circuit had directed the district court do on remand.
4. On June 17, 2014, the Hammonds petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case and sentencing. Notably, the Hammonds in their petition for certiorari did not raise any claims based on "double jeopardy." Rather, the thrust of their challenge was the Eighth Amendment issue that Judge Hogan had originally addressed.
5. On March 23, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Hammonds' petition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.