The first weekend of 2016 proved exciting in the Pacific Northwest when an armed militia overtook the abandoned Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in rural southeast Oregon. The takeover stemmed from a protest on behalf of ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond – father and son – who were recently put back into prison on arson charges of which both have already served time for.
The conflict goes back to 2001 when the Hammonds started a fire on their land that spread beyond their control – burning past their property and onto federal land. Alleged as a coverup for an illegal deer hunt, the Hammonds said it was to combat invasive species. Then in 2006, under a burn ban caused by fires from a lightning storm, the Hammonds set another fire that got out of hand and spread to federal land.
An ensuing legal battle led to the Hammonds being convicted of arson under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The AEPDA was developed to deter and punish terrorism and seems a bit of a stretch for two ranchers of 73 and 46 years. The Hammond's acts were definitely illegal, but they certainly weren't acts of terror.
The AEDPA comes with a five-year minimum sentence for those convicted under the law regardless of any context. Fortunately for the Hammonds, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan only sentenced the father and son to three months and one year and one day in prison, respectively on grounds of the eighth amendment. Judge Hogan felt that given the circumstances of the crimes, a five-year minimum sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment and thus was in violation of the Hammond's rights under the 8th Amendment.
The sentences were then appealed by the U.S. government for not complying with minimum sentencing laws. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took the case and upheld the minimum sentences, sending it back to the trial court where the Hammonds were resentenced to the mandatory five-year prison term.
A recap of the case can be found here, but the logic the court uses for upholding the minimum sentence is as follows:
"Given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense. The Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious or, at the very least, comparable offenses."
This basically means that since courts have violated 8th Amendment rights in countless other cases for often less serious offenses, it is okay to violate the Hammond's 8th Amendment rights in this case.
Minimum sentencing laws have led to such poor legal precedents in the U.S. that those affected by them can't even use the constitution to defend themselves. They limit the discretion of judges and juries by throwing context out the window, and they turn legal battles into a one size fits all scenario.
While minimum sentencing laws are just one of the many issues at play in the standoff in Oregon, the protesters are helping to bring to light a very major hiccup in our justice system.
