It's worth noting that the punishment here was pretty over the top even by US standards. In suburban middle America a college girl with no priors who bruises a cop will not ordinarily get charged with a felony. Some cities would even take the charge that she was manhandled by cops seriously and investigate it.
That seems like you're disputing the charge/verdict, not the punishment.
What is the normal punishment for felony assault of a police officer for someone with no priors?
The reason this distinction is important is because disputing the charge/verdict requires getting involved in the case and seeing the prosecution's evidence.
> The reason this distinction is important is because disputing the charge/verdict requires getting involved in the case and seeing the prosecution's evidence.
I don't agree at all but I also think we've seen enough of the evidence that there's not really much factually to dispute. (We know a lot more than the jury did, which is a very common and very depressing situation but also a separate topic)
Anyhow, felony charges are usually reserved for people who do a lot of damage, on purpose, and who have prior convictions. I agree that there's a distinction to be made between the seriousness of charges and the severity of those charges associated punishment - they're determined by different parts of government, if nothing else - but I don't think as much hangs on it as you seem to, vis a vis the way different places treat crimes more or less severely. Heavy handedness in one area correlates with heavy-handedness in the other, after all.
Are you disputing the verdict or the punishment?