Posted on 02/01/2004 6:36:45 PM PST by Russian Sage
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:55:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
TILLERY, N.C. -- Does the punishment fit the crime? That is the underlying question in our legal system. The answer to that question has changed over time.
In 1970, a day laborer named Junior Allen was given a life sentence for a crime he would likely get probation for today.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
The record indicates that this prisoner has been no worse and no better than most, many of whom received parole.
The record indicates that assault should not have been considered since it could not be proved in court and the parole board has no business second-guessing the court.
The record indicates that rehabilitation in prison is a complete sham...and every parole board in this day and age knows it.
The record indicates quite clearly that this parole board is in the business of lying about what it does, of dispensing Catch 22 justice...and that its members are unfit to serve and probably belong in prison.
The record indicates - if your information is correct and the previous law treated burglary and burglary with assault as equally heinous crimes - that the State of North Carolina was unfit to pass judgement on anyone.
Despite all the above you conclude that the Parole Board came to a reasonable conclusion and made the right call.
...No wonder the Bible includes a parable about beams and motes.
No you don't....
Rich Rosen is a loudmouth, typical hater...
...because - by your own standards - you're still in Jr. High School.
Apparently that is not the case in the State of North Carolina. The Parole Board does consider evidence not presented at trial. You may have a problem with that, but that is the law in North Carolina. Given that the Parole Board does consider this information, how can you fault them? You have a man with repeated convictions and at least two violent assaults who refuses to comply with the rules of incarceration. How is the Parole Board to determine that he is rehabilitated?
The record indicates that rehabilitation in prison is a complete sham...and every parole board in this day and age knows it.
Oh, they are not to make this determination. The Parole Board is just to declare that the process of rehabilitation is a sham, and turn 'em loose!
As far as your personal attack on me, I have not condemned anyone to prison for anything. I am just pointing out that the Parole Board is doing it's job.
What am I to think of yours?
According to the state Department of Correction's official record of the crime , Johnston County sheriff's deputy J.D. Stewart reported that Johnson was home at the time, and she and Allen scuffled. "She was somewhat injured; bruises and scrapes, but nothing serious," the report states.
We have two records. One made at the time. One long after the fact. Which one should be believed?
That you can't even see the relationship tells me that I prefer not to share the planet with you.
Feel free to leave at any time.
The prosecution was so uncomfortable with the record made at the time that they didn't charge Mr. Allen with assault and stipulated that no one was home at the time of the breakin.
Do you have a problem accepting the state's judgement? If so, tell me why you prefer to believe the trooper rather than the D.A.? And why the State chose to reject the trooper's report?
Apparently the Parole Board is permitted to review all of the evidence in the case, including police reports and the like. There is an awful lot of evidence gathered that never gets presented at trial. It looks like the evidence of the beating was not presented in this case.
This is the position of many other posters as well.
But in post #106 you say
Apparently that is not the case in the State of North Carolina. The Parole Board does consider evidence not presented at trial. You may have a problem with that, but that is the law in North Carolina.
I don't have a problem with the law. I have a problem with people who claim they know the law but apparently don't.
AND...
Allen's former attorney claimed that the Judge imposed such a harsh sentence because of the alleged beating...even though the prosecution never presented any evidence of a beating. Clearly something a judge should not do.
Oh, they are not to make this determination. The Parole Board is just to declare that the process of rehabilitation is a sham, and turn 'em loose!
That is a problem isn't it? That's why the parole system is being abandoned.
As far as your personal attack on me
I don't feel that's a fair characterization of my last post. I attacked your reasoning on this case. I said your conclusion could not properly be drawn from the facts. That's quite different than a personal attack on your character or general abilities. Lots of quite admirable and talented people make mistakes. In fact everyone does. How is anyone to point out a mistake if every criticism is regarded as a personal attack?
Could it be that, as a practical matter, the Prosecution knew that the report of the assault would be considered by the Parole Board, which is the law in North Carolina? Since this was the case, there was no advantage to the State to presenting evidence of the assault. If this had not been the case, perhaps the Prosecution would have presented the evidence of the assault. This question is unknowable. But what the Parole Board does have is the record, which is what they are using.
I thought we went over this before?
If it is not Constitutional, that is a matter for the appeals courts in North Carolina, or perhaps a Federal appeals court. It is not the job of the Parole Board to determine what is Constitutional. It is their job to consider the record and decide on parole. The record shows a multiply convicted violent felon who attacked a 87-year-old woman in her home in the middle of the night.
This person's lawyer may want to wish that record away, but the Parole Board cannot do this.
As for whether or not calling somebody is a hypocrite is a personal attack, I guess that depends on how you are used to interacting with people. Back where I come from, calling somebody a hypocrite is considered bad form, especially if you don't back it up.
Did I call you a hypocrite?
I never used the word, never thought of you as one, and never meant to imply it. I thought your conclusion didn't follow from the evidence and said so as forcefully as I could.
Whether I made my case is not for me to say. I'm just as subject to error as you. :)
Could it be that, as a practical matter...
It does not seem right that the prosecution would leave the determination of guilt - as a practical matter - to a Parole Board. That they might be able to do so is most definitely a fault in the law.
At the end of the day I'm left with more questions than when I started
Why did the prosecution reject the trooper's report?
What did the parole board do with that report?
Why did the State of North Carolina not make changes in the law retroactive?
How can it justify allowing one man to serve 6 years and another life for the same crime?
How can it justify allowing parole boards to act as judge and jury?
Without answers I have nothing more to say.
One more thing...which just occured to me.
I've had experience with appeals courts. An appeal is enormously expensive. Those courts will listen only to big bucks or their equivalent in publicity and legal importance. Do you really think this channel is open to some illiterate low-life?
Just what do you think the parable of beams and motes is about, Larry?
As to your questions:
The Prosecution managed to get this guy behind bars for thirty years without relying on uncorroborated testimony from the victim, so they seem to have made the right call by not including the assault in the charge.
The Parole board is considering information regarding the assault which was included in the police reports, as they are, apparently, allowed to do in North Carolina.
North Carolina is not in the business of letting unrehabilitated prisoners loose on society. What would be the State's motive for making the law retroactive?
Similarly, the State of North Carolina does not need to justify anything to anyone. This guy is in jail for thirty years, the other guy is in jail for six. The fact that some other fellow got punished less does not change the elements of this case. Keep in mind that in Post #76 you said that if he were guilty of assaulting an 87-year-old woman in her home, you would be "willing to accept almost any sentence, including life imprisonment."
The Parole Board is not acting as judge and jury. They are acting as a Parole Board. They look at the totality of evidence and make their best judgement as to whether or not this individual is rehabilitated. That's their job. If this fellow had followed the rules in prison, he would have been out ten years ago. Unfortunately for him, he keeps giving the Parole Board reasons to believe that he still belongs behind bars.
Illiterate low-lifes get appeals all the time. Public interest lawyers and the ACLU are eager to take egregious cases of injustice to appeal. For some reason, they have declined to do so in this case.
In absense of a successful appeal, would you advocate that the Parole Board just close their eyes to the information before them and release this person even though he has not shown himself to be rehabilitated? Are they to not do their jobs?
I think it's about criticizing others more harshly than oneself.
We all make mistakes...but we're not all hypocrites. The difference - as well as I can articulate it - lies in two areas; the depth of the mistake, and the ability to acknowledge and correct it once one becomes aware of it.
I may not have chosen well when I chose that parable. It was the best I could think of to highlight what I thought was a blind spot in your thinking.
The Prosecution managed to get this guy behind bars for thirty years without relying on uncorroborated testimony from the victim, so they seem to have made the right call by not including the assault in the charge
That's not their answer as to why they didn't use the trooper's report. It's just your assumption...and it also assumes just what we've been arguing; that the punishment does fit the crime.
The Parole board is considering information regarding the assault which was included in the police reports, as they are, apparently, allowed to do in North Carolina
I know this. But I don't know to what extent they used the police report to justify their denials. And more important, they are acting as judge and jury. If the punishment fits the crime than by the punishment you can determine the crime, or at least the class of crimes. The parole board - a bunch of unelected, political appointees working for the most part in secret without much restraint by the law - is allowed to use evidence not acceptable in court to determine the punishment. That can't be right.
North Carolina is not in the business of letting unrehabilitated prisoners loose on society. What would be the State's motive for making the law retroactive?
Fairness. Something essential to the concept of justice.
Similarly, the State of North Carolina does not need to justify anything to anyone.
Wrong...and unbelievably arrogant.
This guy is in jail for thirty years, the other guy is in jail for six. The fact that some other fellow got punished less does not change the elements of this case. Keep in mind that in Post #76 you said that if he were guilty of assaulting an 87-year-old woman in her home, you would be "willing to accept almost any sentence, including life imprisonment."
So far I've treated you as a serious opponent...but this is a very serious distortion of my postion.
I said I would be willing to accept any sentence, including life imprisonment BUT I - repeatedly - insisted upon two conditions
1) that the State inmpartially, consistantly, and uniformly administer punishment
2) that greater crimes receive greater punishment
Justice is depicted as blind for a good reason. It's to indicate that punishment must be meted out based on the crime and nothing else...and it must be meted out consistantly, uniformly, and fairly. Which means, among other things, that the State of North Carolina cannot sentence one guy to life and another guy to 6 years for the same crime.
As to appeals, they do not happen "all the time". They happen - very rarely for men in Junior Allen's situation.
I know enough about the legal system to know that it works like all other human institutions - maybe more so considering the stakes. Which means that much that it does cannot be justified.
Specifically, I conclude that that prosecution didn't use the trooper's report because it was seriously defective in some way. Not because the victim had no one to corroborate that she was at home at the time of the crime. Meaning that I believe it quite likely that she wasn't at home.
Without seeing the trooper's report, knowing more about the victim and her family, and talking to any surviving members of the D.A.s office at the time and seeing any relevent records, it's not possible to go further.
Presumably the Parole Board had done all of these things. Why do you assume that their conclusion is wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.