For the last five months, Hodgkins was effectively on house arrest – he wore an ankle monitor and adhered to a curfew. According to the probation officer who had been monitoring Hodgkins throughout the criminal case, he was fully compliant while on release.
In June, he pled guilty. And it’s not hard to see why – he simply lacked the resources to put up a fight.
“had an absolutely miniscule … role in [the events of Jan. 6]. Mr. Hodgkins was not involved in any way, shape or form, with violence toward anyone in law enforcement. Mr. Hodgkins was not involved in any way, shape or form with any property damage done to the Capitol. Mr. Hodgkins never touched a single item within the Capitol building itself. His sole participation simply included walking into the building, onto the floor of the United States Senate, and leaving the same building, all within a 15-minute period of time.
What was so troubling about the government’s sentencing arguments in this case was that all of their reasons for incarceration turned on actions undertaken by individuals other than the actual criminal defendant. Indeed, at no time on Jan. 6 did Hodgkins ever engage in any violence or property destruction. He trespassed, yes, but beyond that he simply carried a flag, took a selfie and prayed.
The government’s message was clear – those on the ideological right are fungible, and we can punish one for the sins of the others.
“a man who for just one hour on one day, lost his bearings and his way. It is the story of a man who made a fateful decision to follow the crowd, and found himself for approximately 15 minutes in a place that he sincerely regrets to have been. It is the story of a man who is worthy of this Court’s mercy and grace. Paul is an avatar of us all, and how this Court deals with his misconduct will say much about where we are and what we will become as a nation.”
Today, the court is the one that lost its way. And how it dealt with Paul Hodgkins says a lot about where we are today as a nation.
This story if from Legal Insurrection. Their argument is actually that the eight months was unfair and that based on the actual actions of Hodgkins that he did not deserve even the eight months that was sentenced.
The author in this case is an appellate lawyer and so probably a bit more qualified to look at the case from a legal perspective. I think his criticism is fair. The state is trying to lump the behavior of the worst in with the behavior of the rest and hold people accountable for things that they (themselves) did not do. That certainly seems like bad justice.
On the flip side, I believe the issue involves that fact that Hodgkins and his attorney agreed to plead to the felony charge rather than a lesser charge. This might be one of those situations where their is more leverage outside a trial than inside a trial for the State. They can go harder after those who do not have the means to fight the charges and hope to score some victories.
Whether or not an eight month sentence is a victory of some sort or admission of defeat is a matter of opinion. I tend to believe that when compared to the other protests we have seen over the past 3-4 years, that this particular person's actions would not have driven me to push for harsh treatment.
