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 ...
You’re very welcome.
Resisted in court and on the street,
but not on trespass on government (or private) property.
You cannot credibly stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law by breaking it.
OREGON MILITIA STANDOFF
17m
Spokeswoman with Terminal Island Federal Correctional Institution in Los Angeles confirms Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond now in custody - @EvertonBailey
see original on twitter.com
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.
It’s a flawed system, but anything that involves human beings is flawed. I guess it will always be a bit of a shock when we realize that we’ve encountered a no-good skunk, but most people are all right, and some people are surprisingly good and kind.
The problem with judges and other state or federal types is that they have so much power. Power is seductive to the corrupt.
Like I said, I’m no lawyer. But this seems unusual. The Hammonds had already reported to prison and served their entire sentences, before the sentences were appealed. So in the case of the 2001 fire, the prosecution occurred 10 years after the event, and the sentence appeal started over a year after sentencing.
I’ve seen prosecutors lose interest a lot sooner in murder cases.
Was the original indictment for terrorism? Was the original verdict for terrorism?
Double jeopardy applies only to the guilt/innocence phase of a trial.
Thanks.
This is not a case of Double Jeopardy as Double Jeopardy only applies to findings of Not Guilty. There has not been a finding of Not Guilty in this case.
The 5 year minimum sentence is for terrorism, not arson.
But it does happen. Which means it isn't double jeopardy because it isn't unconstitutional.
No. And no.
OK so how can they be sentenced under terrorism laws (if they are)?
They weren't.
So they were found guilty of ____ arson?
But now they are more guilty of ___ terrorism?
I still don’t get how this can happen legally.
You are prosecuted and convicted for a crime and then sentenced for a different crime?
Why can’t we then take people who have been convicted of, say armed robbery, and done time ... and then add on to their sentence for terrorism?
So where does this terrorism thing come in?
Beat's me.
Illegals destroy federal lands without a peep. In fact, if they are caught they get the “Bienvanidos A America” care package and shown the closest greyhound bus station with free...everything.
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.