home

11th Circuit Rules Jose Padilla's Sentence Not Long Enough

Jose Padilla, the al-Qaeda suspect held in military detention for more than three years before being transferred to federal court where he was tried, convicted and sentenced to 17 years, got off too easy according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The three-judge appeals panel voted 2-1 to reject the lower-court judge’s opinion that Padilla will be too old to pose a threat upon his release from prison. “Padilla poses a heightened risk of future dangerousness due to his al-Qaeda training,” the appeals panel wrote. “He is far more sophisticated than an individual convicted of an ordinary street crime.”

I find the opinion (available here) demeaning in tone to the trial judge. It reads like a parent scolding a child when the parent thinks it knows best and the child should know better. [More...]

Grounds for reversal:

Padilla’s sentence is substantively unreasonable because it does not adequately reflect his criminal history, does not adequately account for his risk of recidivism, was based partly on an impermissible comparison to sentences imposed in other terrorism cases, and was based in part on inappropriate factors.

The reasons given for the trial court's sentence:

[T]he conditions of Padilla’s prior confinement, his allegedly low risk of recidivism due to his age at the time of his anticipated release, the comparable sentences imposed on other terrorists, and the fact that Padilla did not personally injure anyone or target Americans in his conspiracy.

The 11th Circuit says terrorists are like sex offenders when it comes to likelihood of recidivism?

Although recidivism ordinarily decreases with age, we have rejected this reasoning as a basis for a sentencing departure for certain classes of criminals, namely sex offenders. We also reject this reasoning here.

“[T]errorists[,] [even those] with no prior criminal behavior[,] are unique among criminals in the likelihood of recidivism, the difficulty of rehabilitation, and the need for incapacitation.” ...Padilla poses a heightened risk of future dangerousness due to his al-Qaeda training. He is far more sophisticated than an individual convicted of an ordinary street crime.

Other complaints:

the district court substantively erred in reducing Padilla’s sentence based on the fact that Padilla did not personally harm anyone and his crimes did not target the United States. The jury convicted Padilla of violating a statute that prohibits any conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim outside the United States. We held in a pre-Booker case that a district court may not reduce a sentence of a terrorist because the terrorist committed an inchoate crime.

Lastly, we have held that a district court may reduce a sentence to account for the harsh conditions of pretrial confinement, ...but that decision does not justify a downward departure as extensive as the one the district court gave Padilla.

The Court then shakes it finger at the trial judge:

On remand, we admonish the district court to avoid imposition of a sentence inconsistent with those of similarly situated defendants. It should not draw comparisons to cases involving defendants who were convicted of less serious offenses, pleaded guilty, or who lacked extensive criminal histories, nor should it draw comparisons to cases where the government sought the imposition of the death penalty.

Why bother to have trial judges in the first place if they can't exercise their discretion? Where is the data showing that the recidivism rate for terrorists is similar to sex offenders? Have enough terrorists been freed from prison in the U.S. to even conduct a study?
< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | Arguments for More, Not Less, Government Spending >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The 11th circuit court... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 05:05:01 PM EST
    ...is irrational here.  They have no factual basis for making their claims about recidivism, since to make that claim against those who haven't even committed a terrorist act you would need to prove that EVERY terrorist acts in the same manner for the same reasons and has been brainwashed in the same way.  

    Frankly, this sounds like an opinion rendered in a banana republic court. Or by people suffering from some functional, but acute, mental retardation.  But that's what 9/11 did, entirely retarded the evolution of the nation.  This court is simply a gross magnification of that.

    Majority opinion emphasized Padilla (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 05:26:04 PM EST
    had aQ training.  Not sure that makes him more dangerous than the average street thug, as majority opinion claims.  

    Parent
    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:18:24 PM EST
    They are basing their "logic" on something they can never know.  They are, in effect, claiming to be omnipotent.  That is what their opinion would require to be rational.  I'm sorry, this guy has already been psychologically destroyed, this is factually known, he's been tortured into mental incapacitation by all accounts.  This court lacks the emotional depth and intellect of a rodent, period.  When you claim to have the powers of an imaginary God, which this court is, you deserve to be kicked off the bench yesterday.

    Parent
    Maybe its the plague... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:42:33 PM EST
    of greed at play.  

    A pound of flesh ain't enough, gimme two pounds kinda thing.  A judge's version of a stockbroker bonus or something.  

    I mean jesus christ, they got 3 1/2 years of solitary and god knows what, 17 more, and they're claiming worry about the threat of Jose Padilla in 2024?  Seriously?

    Parent

    So the sentencing judge (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Zorba on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 05:16:39 PM EST
    was not supposed to take into account Padilla's 3 1/2 years in a military prison, under solitary confinement?  An American citizen, no charges, no due process, for 3 1/2 years.  Great, just great.  Not.

    According to 11th Circuit majority opinion, (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 05:24:51 PM EST
    trial judge had discretion to take into account length and conditions of pre-trial confinement, but trial judge overdid it--too much time subtracted equals abuse of discretion.  

    Parent
    In that case... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Romberry on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:03:22 PM EST
    ...isn't the 11th Circuit simply substituting their judgment for the judgment of the trial judge? What we have here seems to be a difference of opinion rather than a proper matter of law. That's my take anyway.

    Parent
    Agree, Romberry (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:11:31 PM EST
    That's how I see it too. Glad to see we agree on some things!

    Parent
    Jeralyn, I expect that we agree... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Romberry on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:45:14 PM EST
    ...about far many more things than we disagree on. I'm an anti-drug war civil libertarian equal rights for all regardless of color/creed/sexual orientation social justice progressive taxation single payer/Medicare for all liberal and also a veteran who thinks that war really should be a last resort and not so commonplace that it becomes the normal state of affairs. What we disagree on seems to be pretty much limited to Obama and what is left of the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    I'm curious as to the reversal rate (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:51:52 PM EST
    re trial judge didn't impose long enough sentence, although no procedural errors.  

    Parent
    Just curious... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 05:25:45 PM EST
    Padilla did not personally injure anyone or target Americans in his conspiracy.

    So what did he do?

    He was very scary. (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:53:49 PM EST
    OK (none / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 08:29:09 AM EST
    That's a good idea.

    Let's lock up all the scary people.
    I'm fer it.

    I'd like to start with Cheney - a man who raised the bar of scariness to dizzying heights.

    Maybe the solution is to preemptively put all of the Republican party in jail for the indeterminate future.

    Then, I would add many many if not most democrats - including Biden (he with the truly frightening grin), Holder, Lieberman (an honorary place with his former colleagues), Schumer, Hillary Clinton...
    The lot - with the exception of Kucinich.

    I will add that Obama can be quite scary as well - especially when he gets into his saber-rattling let's bomb somebody mode.

    Parent

    To me, the Court of Appeals majority opinion (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 05:27:09 PM EST
    isn't all that disrespectful of the trial judge, given they are reversing his sentencing.  

    Don't they (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 05:28:32 PM EST
    Do that all the time when they lower sentences of defendants?  Is it disrespectful to the trial judge then?

    Parent
    Please refer me to the cases (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:35:12 PM EST
    you are thinking of, when you suggest that the 11th Circuit (or any federal court of appeals) is in the practice of finding sentences too harsh and "lower[ing]" them "all the time."  This is my principal field of law practice, and I'm not aware of any significant number of such cases.

    Parent
    I'm not specifically talking about (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 09:00:15 AM EST
    the 11th Circuit - but appeals courts DO lower sentences - whether they be federal or state courts.

    My question still stands - do we then think it's disrespectful to the trial judge when sentences are lowered?

    Parent

    Again, I dispute your factual assertion. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 09:21:22 AM EST
    But as to your question about the role of appellate courts, no, it is not disrespectful of trial-and-sentencing judges when appellate courts perform their lawful function of reviewing the legality and reasonableness of a sentence, in a system that gives them that authority.  Jeralyn didn't say it was disrespectful either.  What she said -- and has now repeated at least twice more in response to other comments -- is that the tone of this particular Eleventh Circuit opinion struck her, subjectively, as unusually disrespectful.  That's all she said.

    Parent
    it's their tone (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 06:40:31 PM EST
    it doesn't read like most opinions to me. It reads like a rebuke not just a reversal.

    Parent
    interesting. (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 05:37:15 PM EST
    the 11th circuit cites, as its basis for determining that terrorists represent a higher danger of recidivism than sex offenders a case (meskini) that itself cites no empirical data supporting its assertion, simply the opinion of the opinion's author.

    as i read the opinion, i had to assume that the gov't has a crystal ball it uses to figure out what defendents are thinking, because that's certainly the impression one gets from the majority of the gov't's witnesses' testimony.

    are you certain this wasn't actually one of the salem witch trials?

    Salem Witch Trials -- that about captures as well (none / 0) (#18)
    by jawbone on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 10:20:13 PM EST
    as anything how our legal system has gone bonkers concerning anything which can be tainted in any way whatsoever with terra, terra, terra. At least as how some of the trial outcomes and sentencing strike me, a lay person.

    Next up: Instead of waterboarding, dunking? If the accused survives, it means the devil helped him or her, making him or her guilty; if the accused drowns, it's the...unitary executive's will?? And justice is done....  Heh. /snark

    Parent