Apparently too lenient is a 17 year sentence for Jose Padialla according to a U.S. Court of Appeals panel (read it here). At the time of Padilla's conviction his mother announced they would appeal the sentence thinking they would get a lesser sentence--oops. The panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says that 17 years is too lenient. The U.S. government prosecutors had asked for 30 years to life for Padilla upon conviction.
Padilla, you should recall, was arrested for conspiracy to commit a dirty bomb attack. He was found guilty of conspiring to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. Is it appropriate to sentence such crime to life imprisonment? According to U.S. legal codes, apparently this lengthy sentence is appropriate. However, no real minimum sentencing guideline exists. But the panel from the 11th Circuit apparently thinks they know the minimum guideline should be more than 17years. Oh, should we factor in the 3 years that Padilla had already served without trial or filed charges, 17 years becomes 20 years.
Having met some terrorists face to face and coming away with a healthy distaste for this type of individual, I am fine with capture, trial, and stiff sentence. But, in this instance I am not sure that the sentence is at all lenient. Have you met anyone who spent 20 years in a supermax federal prison and came away from the experience happy/sane/...(insert your own words here)? In 17 years Padilla will be about 60 years old, a convicted felon, and known possible terrorist. What a resume, what a way to resume life in the United States.
One other issue I have with this reversal. If Padilla's crime warranted life in prison, then we should remove him permanently from society. Prisons used to be called penal institutions, we need to get over the "correctional" idea as no correction exists in prisons. We penalize people for violating rules meant to safeguard society. When the penalty is paid, the person goes back to whatever life they can salvage. If the crime merits life, make it life. Otherwise, be reasonable. Padilla is partner to a great conspiracy to take the lives of citizens of the U.S. He did not, however, ever take a life (that we publicly know of at present). So, 17 plus the 3 already served seems reasonable.
Padilla, you should recall, was arrested for conspiracy to commit a dirty bomb attack. He was found guilty of conspiring to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. Is it appropriate to sentence such crime to life imprisonment? According to U.S. legal codes, apparently this lengthy sentence is appropriate. However, no real minimum sentencing guideline exists. But the panel from the 11th Circuit apparently thinks they know the minimum guideline should be more than 17years. Oh, should we factor in the 3 years that Padilla had already served without trial or filed charges, 17 years becomes 20 years.
Having met some terrorists face to face and coming away with a healthy distaste for this type of individual, I am fine with capture, trial, and stiff sentence. But, in this instance I am not sure that the sentence is at all lenient. Have you met anyone who spent 20 years in a supermax federal prison and came away from the experience happy/sane/...(insert your own words here)? In 17 years Padilla will be about 60 years old, a convicted felon, and known possible terrorist. What a resume, what a way to resume life in the United States.
One other issue I have with this reversal. If Padilla's crime warranted life in prison, then we should remove him permanently from society. Prisons used to be called penal institutions, we need to get over the "correctional" idea as no correction exists in prisons. We penalize people for violating rules meant to safeguard society. When the penalty is paid, the person goes back to whatever life they can salvage. If the crime merits life, make it life. Otherwise, be reasonable. Padilla is partner to a great conspiracy to take the lives of citizens of the U.S. He did not, however, ever take a life (that we publicly know of at present). So, 17 plus the 3 already served seems reasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment