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.
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.