Justice Served? Man Serving Life Sentence For Stealing TV

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.

Sounds more to me like he also raped the elderly woman, and the family and the police didnt want riots all over town because of it.
Thirty years ago, it would have touched off mob violence by the local men on a massive scale, to have a bum assault and rob an elderly woman.
But that was thirty years ago, and things have changed.
And for all you "compassion" filled people who think poverty causes crime, and criminals are just misunderstood victims of an unjust society-KMA!
You now think nothing of letting violent criminals off easily, and soonest, due to your "compassion" for them.
Screw the crime victims past, present and future.
Some of you still think OJ is not guilty of murder,because he was not convicted, and Castro just needs a little more time to manifest utopia.
Rant off!

I reread your post. I think you're crazy.

you want to personalize everything

Idiotic. Not supported by anything I've said. Not once have I used an ad hominem. You're posts are full of them.

have you tried that experiment of breaking into a couple of houses yet? Is it safe? Safe for you? Safe for the victims?

No. I've never been a criminal and have never wanted to be one. How is this relevant...and aren't you getting personal?

Just a side issue, for you to vent your envy of people who have money--even if it's only stolen money.

Even? Pretty casual attitude for a man who claims to be concerned with crime and punishment?...and where do you get the idea that I envy these people?

You seem to envy almost everyone

Really? What's your evidence for such a claim?

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

Life's a beach that these guys can steal millions and get no punishment while small-time losers get life for stealing a TV? Only to another crook. How did they breach anyone's physical safety? Well, I've read that quite a few people lost everything as a result of these white-collar crimes. I leave it to you to imagine what followed.

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

I do, huh. You must be great fun socially if you draw conclusions like that.

It's arguments like yours that lead to injustice.

The Supreme Court in 1971 found that the State couldn't even prove the house was occupied at the time of the crime. Do you know what that means? Think about it. Why was it so difficult? And if he assaulted her why wasn't she seriously injured? Why didn't she require hospitalization? An 87 year-old woman fought with a young physical laborer and didn't suffer serious injury? Almost impossible.

The most probably conclusion to draw from all this is that there was no confrontation and the house was unoccupied. Rather than do that you go to incredible lengths to justify the punishment.

Why?

Perhaps because I am old enough to remember 1971?
You may try to distort history till you turn blue in the face, but that will not actually change history.
To understand what went on, way back then, it is usefull to understand the context and what was widely understood as functional truth.
If that upsets your superior intellectual sence of justice today, oh well.
It is still not going to impact on the past.
It must horrify you to research and find out that many "crimes" and resultant punishments never processed through lawyers and judges.
I dont think you can honestly say we are better off nowadays, as society relates to crime.
There is a lot to be said for shoot, shovel and shut up community enforced justice.
Historically speaking.It would not be valuable on a widespread basis today.

I remember the death of Roosevelt so, when it comes to age, I think you have nothing on me. Also, you presume far too much when you make assumptions about what does or does not upset me. It would be better if you simply stuck to the facts and arguments.

I remember that crime got a lot worse during and following the Viet Nam war - a normal occurance, as history and current events make clear. I also think population pressures and enormous immigration have aggravated the situation.

It's true that "many 'crimes' and resultant punishments never processed through lawyers and judges" - and that mostly resulted in great injustice (something you neglect to mention but are surely aware of).

And

There's an elephant in the room which everyone sees but pretends not to see - Race. A difficult subject. Liberals maximize its influence while conservatives minimize. But its influence is real and relevant.

I told you not to make unwarranted assumptions. It hasn't done any good - which tells me you don't have control of yourself...and are ruled by your fears.

I don't know the modern south, and in the old south rape by a bum of any color was treated very harshly (although Faulkner, Tennessee Williams, and others had quite a few unflattering things to say about that culture, and they knew it damned well). But I know for sure that race played a role in the administration of "justice" and still plays a role.

What that role is cannot be determined without looking at the particulars of each case. In Los Angeles, Rodney King turned out to be a bum who got just what he deserved. Junior Allen seems to have been a bum who was punished far beyond what he deserved - probably due to prejudice.

More generally, blacks commit crimes far beyond their numbers, and achieve far less than their numbers, but DWB (driving while black) is a real phenomenon and not something they, or liberals, invented. I leave it to you to tell me why white collar criminals - overwhelmingly of the white race - are so leniently punished.

Are they actual true memories or LSD induced?

Now, now. If you want to be treated like a lady you must act like one.

---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."

You must stay in jail longer to be safe to release.

"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."---

The longer you are in jail the more dangerous you become and so cannot be released.

Pure Catch 22 insanity. Disgusting.

As I said in my previous post to you I see no evidence that this guy actually did this (beat up on a 87-year-old lady)...but assuming he did I'm willing to accept almost any sentence, including life imprisonment.

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.

Now, why would the Prosecution not present evidence of a beating if a beating actually took place? Well, if the Prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the beating took place, then they will not present it at trial, because one doubtful element would throw doubt on the entire case. So, for instance, if a thief was caught with the goods and his fingerprints were all over the house, it is easy to prove that he broke in and stole. If the woman is battered but not severely injured, and there is no physical evidence of her injuries, and she can't prove she was at home in the middle of the night, the assault element comes down to the statement of one uncorroborated witness.

So, if you happen to live alone, were you home last night, at Midnight? Can you prove you were home? Anybody see you there, did you make any phone calls? How could this woman prove that she was assaulted, when she could not even prove that she was home?

But in North Carolina the Parole Board, apparently, is not limited to facts presented at trial. Rather, it seems that they look at the totality of evidence and the prisoners actions in while incarcerated in order to come up with their decision. Given the totality of evidence before them, it is hard to quibble with the result.

LOL. Talking to you is like talking to a junior high school debater. Except, junior high debaters have already been taught that calling their opponent names, like "crazy" and "idiotic" will not win them the debate, and will in fact detract from their performance.

Junior has deserved every year he has spent in jail. And if after all this time, he can't even behave properly behind bars with guards watching him (much less, out in the real world), then it is just and proper that he stay in jail.

I skimmed the posts, and I see you frantically flailing your arms against all sorts of posters on here. You are obviously just someone who loves arguments of the style, "I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? Nyaaah!," etc. and on forever. Talking to you is a waste of time. When I have some more time to waste, I'll talk to you.

"Call me a compassionate conservative ... this sums up how I feel about someone who breaks the law. When I read the article and saw: "... when you consider that North Carolina's prison population is 30 percent over capacity, ..." I immediately thought why NC wasn't closing more prisons to save money. 30% over capacity sounds a tad bit comfortable in my book. Stack the scum on top of each other and warehouse them. Feed them gruel, once a day!"

You obviously have never been in a correctional facility, and know even less about prisons or you would have never made such a cavalier and uninformed statement. I am not a member of the "hug a thug" club by a long shot, but what you suggest is both unfeasible and dangerous, to both staff and inmates. Now as regards this prisoner he shouldn't be out. His disciplinary record and ability to conform to societal rules according to other sources is shaky. He would most likely reoffend . If you feel Prisoners are coddled(and in many ways they are) fine , lets talk about changing that. But, please don't fall back on the tired "lock em up and throw away the key, that'll learn em!" argument. It doesn't help, and HAS gotten prison cops (like me btw) injured and killed. I'm touchy about that, go figure

Slainte,

>> You obviously have never been in a correctional facility, and know even less about prisons or you would have never made such a cavalier and uninformed statement.

I have been a victim of crime, by a repeat offender. And he is out again - and I susspect he is up to his same old goodness. He was never corrected at a correctional facility. And he certainly was not punished. This is my experience. I have never been in a correctional facility. My statements are not cavalier or uninformed. They come from the basis of experience - where my life is still being effected by that experience everyday.

If I were to speak my full mind about what I think a model prison would be, you would completely understand that the most important thing that I take into consideration is the safety of prison employees.

>> If you feel Prisoners are coddled(and in many ways they are) fine , lets talk about changing that.

Yes the are coddled, and they certainly are not punished. Prision should be a place where a prisoner can create a living hell in his mind - he should have nothing else do to but think. Nothing else. I'm not talking about torture. I'm not talking about starving. But warehousing them 24/7. And as for the prision employees, there is minimal contact, since there is no herding prisioners from one place to another; to school, to work, the weight room, etc. They sit there and think. Three times that a prisoner would be moved. 1.) When he arrives. 2.) When he leaves. 3.) And to solitary confinement for the rest of his prison term if he breaks any of the very simple rules.

I doubt anyone would like to come back to that. There more to my thoughts on prisons, but lack the time and space to put them all down in a post.

Except, junior high debaters have already been taught that calling their opponent names, like "crazy" and "idiotic" will not win them the debate, and will in fact detract from their performance

Is that so? And who was responsible for the following posts? Three guesses?

He is a loudmouth, typical hater, an ambitious little attorney, and he is talking out his ass

You wouldn't trust them if I DID bring them to your lazy, argumentative, discontented, angry little door

Or would you be wanting that person to be prosecuted so that he would not do that again? (I don't expect an honest answer.)

apparently you have trouble with abstract thinking

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

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

Any clue? Hmmmm.... :)

As I said I think you're crazy and have no understanding of what you're saying, let alone of what others are saying.

You're arguing the details of the law. I'm not competent to argue such things. Perhaps you are. But I'll continue on the assumption that you're as much a layman as I on these matters.

On the question of whether the woman was beaten, or even at home, at the time of the crime.

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.

If the woman had been home and beaten the first thing she would have done is call her relatives, who would have rushed over, and then called the police...or taken her to the hospital and then called the police

I've served on juries. Most jurors are reasonable people. They would have accepted the above without question. So why didn't the prosecution present it? You say the woman couldn't prove she was at home. Why not? No jury would have trouble believing that an 87 year old woman usually sleeps in her own bed. Obviously, there's a lot more to this story and we don't know what that is.

Selma lawyer Ken Hinton , who represented Allen at trial in October 1970, recalled similar facts. "It seems to me like the woman might have been beaten," he said. "That may be why the judge gave him all that time."

Might have been? May be? What kind of evidence is that and how did he know?

On the question of whether the punishment fit the crime.

The state sentencing law later was changed, but was not made retroactive. The maximum prison sentence now for second-degree burglary -- in the third-lowest level of 10 classes of felonies -- is three years. 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.

At the time, a life sentence didn't necessarily mean life, as it does now. It meant, in Allen's case, that he became eligible for parole after about 7 1/2 years in prison. That's when the rejections began,

Allen hasn't been a model prisoner. Just how bad he is, that's the question. Quite bad, the parole commission says. Not too bad, his jailers say

Is there any question? The law was unjust from the beginning. It was changed but the changes were not made retroactive. The sentencing judge seems to have had 7 1/2 years in mind conditional upon rehabilitation. The parole boards probably belong in prison themselves.

There's a larger question however. This guy was a loser. No education, no skills, violent temperament, predilection for crime. Should people be incarcerated or killed for such things? If so, then the state should and must be consistant in the admininistration of such punishment and it is not. For example, those with multiple DUIs should be given life terms or killed. Are they?

The sentencing judge seems to have had 7 1/2 years in mind conditional upon rehabilitation. The parole boards probably belong in prison themselves.

How is the Parole Board to determine if the condition of rehabilitation has been met? They look at the record. The record includes information of the assault and the fact that this inmate has continued to break the rules while in prison. Does that sound like rehabilitation to you?

As to why the information regarding the assault was not presented at trial, it appears that under the previous law in North Carolina a conviction for burglary was as good as one for burglary with assault, since the assault could be considered by the Parole Board at the appropriate time. If this had not been the case, perhaps the Prosecution would have gone for the greater charge, instead of settling for the "slam-dunk" on burglary and theft. But these "what-ifs" are ultimately unknowable.

But the fact of the matter is that the Parole Board is permitted to come to a reasonable conclusion regarding the assault based on the information before them, and has concluded that the assault took place. Based on that, and this prisoner's record since then, they seem to be making the right call.

I think you enjoy the spectacle of yourself being this person who goes on Freerepublic and swims against the tide, or takes on crowds of people, like a little gladiator.

I think you want to stand out.

One thing you don't want to do is honestly discuss this article under which you posted. You know that crying over the criminal defendant is often an unpopular position, and you are eager to show yourself as different from the crowd.

But after a while your constant pointless spinning of wheels, over anything but the original topic of discussion, becomes very boring.

PS Rich Rosen is a loudmouth, typical hater, an ambitious little attorney, and he is talking out his ass. His type are a dime a dozen; I've seen dozens like him. Judges almost go to sleep when they start with their unfounded accusations.

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.