Jose Padilla sentencing

"[Jose] Padilla's sentence maybe be appropriate as a "bottom line" matter, especially because he was NOT convicted of being a "dirty bomber" and that there was no evidence to link him to any specific act of terrorism," said Katherine Darmer, a former assistant US attorney and current professor of law at Chapman University's School of Law.

"The judge's decision to take into account his conditions of confinement is arguably illegal under sentencing law, however, which directs judges to take into account such factors as the seriousness of the offense, respect for the law, deterrence and protection of the public, and the need to provide the defendant with correctional treatment," Prof. Darmer added. "Pretrial treatment of the defendant is ordinarily taken into account at the trial stage -- with evidence being excluded if it was discovered as the result of illegal treatment of the defendant, for example."

"The case illustrates that there should be a role for judicial oversight of detention centers like the brig at a much earlier stage in the process," Prof. Darmer also points out. "The better procedure would have been for Padilla to have gotten a remedy for abusive conditions while he was subject to those conditions. To give him a shorter sentence primarily because of those harsh conditions undermines the important sentencing goal of protecting the public."

"No one held in the United States, no matter how serious his crimes, should be subject to abusive confinement conditions," Prof. Darmer concludes. "But once someone is fairly convicted, he should be sentenced to a term consistent with the seriousness of that offense."