OK I found this:
[The original judge] U.S. Judge Michael Hogan agreed with the Hammonds’ defense lawyers that setting fire to juniper trees and sagebrush in the wilderness was not the type of crime that Congress had in mind when it set mandatory sentences of five to 20 years for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy by means of fire†any federal property...
http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison
I have also read elsewhere that the jury was not informed that the mandatory sentence was 5 years minimum and 20 years maximum. How could the jury not make an informed decision without that information (if that is true that they were not informed).
I hope that the whole thing is reviewed and maybe go to the Supreme Court because something does not seem right about this.
The problem is that when the law mandates a minimum sentence then the decision is taken out of the judge's hands. They do not have a choice. The judge may have disagreed with it but by law he was supposed to sentence them to a minimum of 5 years.
I have also read elsewhere that the jury was not informed that the mandatory sentence was 5 years minimum and 20 years maximum. How could the jury not make an informed decision without that information (if that is true that they were not informed).
The jury's job was to determine guilt or innocence based on evidence and not on what the potential sentence would be.