Rand Paul was viciously assaulted two years ago. He suffered six broken ribs, multiple instances of pneumonia, and had hernia surgery due to the attack.
It was despicable and cowardly and Paul’s neighbor was guilty. But then the judge gave him a slap on the wrist and sentenced the goon to only 30 days in jail.
30 days for assaulting a sitting U.S. Senator? The sentence justifiably caused outrage across the spectrum.
So Rand’s attorney’s appealed the sentence a federal court just agreed. Justice may move slow but it moves.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled the light sentence “substantively unreasonable” and sent it back to the lower court to rethink the sentence.
The guidelines called for two years in prison so expect the new sentence to be closer to the official recommendation.
Paul’s attorneys appealed Boucher’s 30-day sentencing, arguing that the seriousness of Paul’s injuries should necessitate a harsher sentencing. The Sixth Circuit agreed and argued Boucher’s personal background — his education, family, and community service — should not have had anything to do with his sentencing.
“These factors are disfavored for good reason,” the court wrote in its opinion ordering the district court to re-sentence Boucher.
“To prioritize a defendant’s education, professional success, and standing in the community would give an additional leg up to defendants who are already in a privileged position …
That is why Congress and the [federal sentencing] Guidelines oppose a class-based system where accumulated wealth, education, and status serve as credits against a criminal sentence.”
The Sixth Circuit is correct. The only thing about Boucher that mattered was his willingness to attack another man — over the appearance of his yard, no less.
Did Boucher’s college degree stop him from tackling Paul into the ground? Did his habitual community service stop him from hitting Paul over and over again?