Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Served? Man Serving Life Sentence For Stealing TV
WRAL.com ^ | November 25, 2003 | Gerald Owens

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: burglary; northcarolina; parole; prison
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-145 next last
To: liberallarry
How many people did they physically "struggle with" while stealing that money?

61 posted on 02/02/2004 7:44:35 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
At least you conceded that this Rosen doesn't know what he's babbling about.
62 posted on 02/02/2004 7:45:45 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
There has to be more to this story than what the author has written. I agree that there is a definite spin on his article.

I know two people in suburban Pittsburgh neighborhoods whose homes have been broken into. It's a shattering experience. Their neighborhoods were not considered high crime neighborhoods. There's always some deviate waiting to take advantage of whatever they can get away with. The solution is to make the punishment severe so that it will deter such actions.

63 posted on 02/02/2004 7:54:53 AM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TMSuchman
"Life" didn't use to mean life. Starting after WWII, and through the late '60s and 1970's, most states had what was called "indeterminate" sentencing. Judges had the discretion to give very long nominal sentences to convicts whom they judged difficult to rehabilitate, with the understanding that the Parole Board would determine the convict's degree of contrition, rehabilitation, social supports if paroled, etc., and let him go once a minimal level of the foregoing had been shown.

Liberals and conservatives both grew to hate indeterminate sentences. Liberals hated the fact that for the same offense, a judge's discretion could result in one person getting 364 days in county and another person getting life, and thereafter being subject to the mercy of a politically appointed, non-professional (i.e., citizens, not lawyers) Parole Board from which there was basically no appeal. In particular, liberals thought that race and class figured far too heavily in deciding who got the long sentences, and how fast those who had long sentences were paroled. Conservatives hated the fact that people sentenced to "life" were expected to be released after having serviced only a few years, and didn't like the high investment in prisoner education and socialization projects which the indeterminate sentencing rules implicitly required to work.

The result was that indeterminate sentencing was tossed out in favor of narrow sentence ranges and truth in sentencing rules which required a minimum percentage of the sentenced time to be served, and required from 10 to 25 years to be served on a life bid before the parole board could meet. However, there are still plenty of people locked up under the old rules.

A judge would not just give a life sentance[sp] for this.
64 posted on 02/02/2004 7:55:43 AM PST by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Russian Sage
Doesn't mention a prior record. Bet there is something there. Could be that he's one of the folks for which "three strikes and you're out" was written.
Have to admit, I have limited sympathy for a con, but it does seem ridiculous to spend a million dollars to keep him in jail.
'Course when he gets out, he'll still be on the public tab; he'll be gettin' SS retirement!
65 posted on 02/02/2004 8:00:05 AM PST by Little Ray (Why settle for a Lesser Evil? Vote Cthuhlu for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
What evidence do you have for any of your "suppositions"?

Given the information linked in Post #37, what do you think of the sentence? The guy had prior convictions for two burglaries, a breaking and entering, a car theft, and a violent assault. Apparently he assaulted the woman in this case.

What do you think is the proper sentence for a repeated violent offender who invades homes and beats up on 87-year-old ladies?

The Parole Board considers many factors, including the police reports of the crime and the prisoner's behavior while incarcerated. He has 63 or 55 (depending on who you believe) infractions over his time in prison, ranging from disobeying orders to fighting and tampering with a lock. What is the Parole Board to make of this information?

Apparently, in recent years he has greatly improved his behavior. If he has managed to avoid infractions for the past couple of years, parole might be appropriate. But as long as he was breaking the rules in prison, the Parole Board was right to deny him.

As far as I can tell you're either making it up, or believing only what supports your prejudices, or both.

I will admit to starting with the assumption that the State of North Carolina is not continuing to incarcerate this fellow just for jollies. When I see a slanted story like this, I do have a tendency to read between the lines and assume the information that the author is deliberately with-holding.

Turns out, in this case, I was right.

66 posted on 02/02/2004 8:01:05 AM PST by gridlock (I think I'm gonna join the Ricky Proehl Fan Club, if there is such a thing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
What we have here is a failure to communicate...
67 posted on 02/02/2004 11:18:52 AM PST by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
This here is Boss King's ditch. What's your dirt doin' in Boss King's ditch?
68 posted on 02/02/2004 11:34:47 AM PST by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Aren't you just dying to see Ken Lay and all the other Enron execs subjected to medieval torture? I doubt it.

Why should I be? What does that have to do with the subject at hand, which is a man breaks into the home of a elderly lady, assaults her and steals her TV.

If he is let out can he move in with your granny?

69 posted on 02/02/2004 3:28:39 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (...and thousands of cute furry kittens are trampling everything in their path)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Swiping stuff is one thing. Breaking into an occupied home and assaulting the owner is quite another. The same difference as there is between carjacking and car theft.

With a history of violent assault is thrown in the mix I can find nothing wrong with the sentence.

He has had several chances at parole. He has shown himself disinclined to avail himself of these chances in the past. Maybe he will do better in the future. So far the judge has been right on the button. If he had been let out after 6 months as some on this thread have advocated is there any doubt that he would have continued on the same path he was on before?

70 posted on 02/02/2004 3:42:07 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Don't heat distilled water in the microwave. This has been a public service announcement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
He apparently got "life with parole". That is by no means a life sentence. Not even close. He has had chances for parole. Parole has been for HIM to win, or to lose, and his behavior has been such that he has so far failed to win it. That's HIS fault. Others have won parole; others have kept their nose clean while in prison, so as to win parole. Has he? Apparently not.

I think you have it.  I suppose the original intent of the "7.5 years to life" law was to rehabilitate convicts by making them earn their parole.  If you pointed out to a lawmaker back then that a petty burglar could spend the rest of his life in prison, he would have laughed and said that no one could be so behavioraly screwed-up that he couldn't get paroled after 25 years of opportunities.

71 posted on 02/02/2004 5:37:02 PM PST by Russian Sage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Given the information linked in Post #37, what do you think of the sentence?

You mean this information?

Allen, 63 , has been eligible for parole for 25 years , but the state Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission has turned him down 25 times. It says it denied him parole because he breaks prison rules, and he might have roughed up Johnson -- though he wasn't convicted of it.

"Your release at this time would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the crime or promote disrespect for the law," the commission wrote Allen in December, after his most recent parole review. "Your continued correctional programming in the institution will substantially enhance your capacity to lead a law-abiding life if released at a later date."

"Anyone with a life sentence who has been in prison as long as this man has, and has been in close custody [highest risk] most of those years, we cannot see placing him back in the community," Baker said last week in an interview at her office in Raleigh. " He's a threat to the public."

Allen has no legal grounds for a court appeal, because he was properly convicted of second-degree burglary: breaking and entering a home at night to steal something , regardless of whether the home is occupied. He was sentenced to life in prison under an old law.

Even assuming that Allen accosted Johnson, the longest prison sentence he could get under current law for the most likely charges, burglary and robbery , would be six years.

According to court records, prosecutors reduced the charge to second-degree burglary because they couldn't prove that Johnson had been home during the theft. "It was, in effect, a stipulation by the state that the house was not actually occupied at the time," states a 1971 state Supreme Court ruling rejecting Allen's appeal.

I think the sentence is grossly unfair and the parole board is filled with incompetent liars or worse.

72 posted on 02/02/2004 7:03:16 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Why should I be? What does that have to do with the subject at hand, which is a man breaks into the home of a elderly lady, assaults her and steals her TV.

In post #37 the State is said to have stipulated that they couldn't even prove that the house was occupied at the time of the crime, let alone that the woman was assaulted....yet here you are trying to present the assault as a fact. What am I to think of your judgement?

The subject at hand is not the nature of this particular crime but whether the punishment fit it...and an important factor in making that judgement is comparing this punishment with that meted out to other criminals.

It offends me deeply to hear that some low-life is given life because he stole a TV from a house which may have been occupied while so-called good citizens can steal millions of dollars and destroy the jobs and pensions of thousands and receive a much lesser punishment. That you can't even see the relationship tells me that I prefer not to share the planet with you.

73 posted on 02/02/2004 7:13:58 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
What do you think is the proper sentence for a repeated violent offender who invades homes and beats up on 87-year-old ladies?

As I said in my previous post to you I see no evidence that this guy actually did this...but assuming he did I'm willing to accept almost any sentence, including life imprisonment.

What I'm not willing to accept is lesser sentences for larger crimes - such as stealing millions of dollars...and that's our present situation.

It cannot be called justice.

74 posted on 02/02/2004 7:19:48 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Are you asking me to compile statistics? You wouldn't trust them if I DID bring them to your lazy, argumentative, discontented, angry little door. (Or... hey, I'll break in and leave them on your kitchen table, 'kay?)

I'm asking you to present evidence for your ill-mannered, unfounded claims. Not too much to ask is it...since you think you're so much better than I at thinking rationally.

The story cited in post #37 says that the Supreme Court, in a 1971 review of the case, found that the State had stipulated that it couldn't even prove the house was occupied at the time of the crime...let alone that anyone was assaulted. What do you know that they didn't?

How many people did they physically "struggle with" while stealing that money?

Oh so that's the criteria? So stealing the savings, pensions, and jobs of thousands is a lesser crime because no one was physically assaulted? Well, then tell me how much you have in your account and your pension...and give me the same information for all of your friends or relatives. It might be worth 6 months or a year in prison.

75 posted on 02/02/2004 7:34:41 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
You're arguing the facts. I'm talking about the crime of burglary as distinguished from the crime of theft.

But since you want to personalize everything--apparently you have trouble with abstract thinking--let me ask you: have you tried that experiment of breaking into a couple of houses yet? Is it safe? Safe for you? Safe for the victims?

The Enron execs--a red herring. Just a side issue, for you to vent your envy of people who have money--even if it's only stolen money. You seem to envy almost everyone. I think you're intimidated by, or envious of, everyone who is not a total loser as this imprisoned man is. If it aggravates you that the white collar criminals didn't get as much time as your dear small-time loser, all I can do is laugh. Life's a beach, isn't it? But you haven't told me whose house, whose physical safety zone, those white-collar guys breached in their thefts.

And as if to prove my point, you appear eager to emulate the Enron crooks, but you timidly avoid emulating your hero from this article.
76 posted on 02/02/2004 7:52:57 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Russian Sage
Yes, even prison offers options, choices for the individual to make. He can better himself, or he can continue to be a loser.

If someone can't even behave himself behind bars while he has guards breathing down his neck, he has no hope of behaving himself out in the world.
77 posted on 02/02/2004 7:56:18 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Carjacking vs. car theft is a really good analogy.

You know, when a person is a child, he is taught not to corner a rat, b/c even a rat can actually be dangerous if it is CORNERED. How much more dangerous must a cornered human be! Someone who will go into an occupied dwelling--or into one which MIGHT be occupied--is someone who doesn't care, who doesn't have anything to lose. And THAT is a dangerous person to have on the streets.
78 posted on 02/02/2004 7:59:15 PM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Home invasion and assault. Why he is just a cuddly little innocent isn't he?

And there's this little fact. He assualted an 80 year old woman trying to take that TV.

As for the woman who owned the television set, she was in her 80s at the time of the crime

79 posted on 02/02/2004 8:02:33 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
You're arguing the facts

You think that singles me out? Read the thread. Most posters were concerned about whether this particular criminal received a proper punishment - whether the punishment fit the crime - and they continually refer to what they think are the facts, but aren't.

As for the more general question of burglary vs. theft, and the proper punishment for both, it is generally agreed the more serious the crime the more serious punishment is merited - and burglary is more serious than theft. The thing is it's you who are presenting strawmen and red herrings. I never denied any of the above.

What I did say is that white collar crime is punished too leniently by comparison with burglary. You claim the whole argument is a red-herring...as if the theft of property were some minor issue. Don't yet realize that wars are fought to protect property, that private property and its defense is central to capitalism?

Do you really think that if I steal your house by legal manoevers which enable me to get the sheriff to throw you out, that I've committed a lesser crime than if I come over and throw you out myself? Apparently so, since what you seem to fear most is physical confrontation...and that tells you you're a coward.

Don't like that? Think it's to personal? Read your own posts. I'm only replying with the same vocabularly you've been consistantly using.

80 posted on 02/02/2004 8:17:11 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-145 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson