I've never heard of appellate courts throwing out a sentence because it wasn't severe enough. I have little sympathy for Jose Padilla, but that's not the standard for fairness in this country, being a nice guy. Then again, if a judge goes nuts and gives a rapist one day in jail shouldn't someone be able to overturn that? The counter argument is that the judge is the one who heard the entire case, not the appeals court. Then again, our system permits appellate courts to overturn lower courts, even though they weren't there. Lots to think about here.
From UPI:
The appeals court panel ruled 2-1 Monday, "The record shows that the government presented evidence that the defendants formed a support cell linked to radical Islamists worldwide and conspired to send money, recruits and equipment overseas to groups that the defendants knew used violence in their efforts to establish Islamic states," ruling against all three.
On the government's cross-appeal, the majority said the sentencing judge "attached little weight to Padilla's extensive criminal history, gave no weight to his future dangerousness, compared him to criminals who were not similarly situated and gave unreasonable weight to the conditions of his pre-trial confinement.
