NationStates Jolt Archive

In 1970 a man was convicted for stealing a television set worth $140. He's only now getting paroled. The judge took 30 years of this man's life away for stealing a television set. Who's the undesirable, the thief, or the judge who hands out such draconian sentences?

www.wral.com/news/4541334/detail.html

Obviously, this case looks like it was motivated for race. However, in 1970, a $140 television was also worth a lot more than $140 is now... still no excuse.

30 years is way excessive, and I have little doubt that race was a factor in his original sentence--but how did he not get paroled before now? I'll bet there's a little more to this story.

Don't murderers often get 25 years?

Man should sue and get a 10 million settlement by the state. I would easily forgive a settlement that big under the circumstances.

30 years is way excessive, and I have little doubt that race was a factor in his original sentence--but how did he not get paroled before now? I'll bet there's a little more to this story.
Refer to this article:
http://www.wral.com/news/2662960/detail.html

Rosen said the Parole Commission holds the key to Allen's freedom.
"He didn't get a hearing last year. We were not allowed to go to the Parole Commission. We had to submit something in writing," Rosen said.
The Parole Commission responded with the following statement: "Your release at this time would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the crime."
It was the 25th straight year Allen was denied parole.
The Parole Commission declined WRAL's interview request. They previously cited Allen's prison infractions and long stay in maximum security for keeping him locked up.
Doncha love their logic? They deny him parole for 25 years straight, then use the fact he's been in prison so long as the reason for not paroling him.
I'm not even going to try to work that logic out.

Refer to this article:
http://www.wral.com/news/2662960/detail.html


Doncha love their logic? They deny him parole for 25 years straight, then use the fact he's been in prison so long as the reason for not paroling him.
I'm not even going to try to work that logic out.

"Your release at this time would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the crime."

...STEALING A BLOODY TV? People get less time for murder(Serious, here).

Stealing a TV(Though I condone no such behavior) is obviously more serious than murderer someone. He has payed for his crimes amost ten fold. He has lost half his life. He was a stupid kid then. Does he really deserve to rot for something that he has already payed for?

Naturally stealing a TV is more serious than murder. If you kill someone he's no longer interested in watching TV, and his family members can take comfort in some quality reality programming. If you steal a man's TV he's forced to do such degrading things as reading, conversing with his family, taking a walk, or even taking up a hobby. What's worse is that his whole family is condemned to this fate worse than death until they can go out and buy a new TV.

Hummmm.....

Sucks to be him. Should have just made him work off the price of the TV....oh wait...that would be forced labor...can't do that now can we.

Oh well.....too bad I shall weep later after I eat a grilled cheese.

Doncha love their logic? They deny him parole for 25 years straight, then use the fact he's been in prison so long as the reason for not paroling him.
I'm not even going to try to work that logic out.Thy're not using the fact that he's been in prison, they're claiming that he's committed prison infractions, in other words, not being a good prisoner and behaving himself.

That said, I agree that the sentence sounds ludicrous. Was there an element of violence involved? The article says that assault wasn't brought up in the trial. Was there reason to believe that this man would go back to his old victims and exact revenge for putting him behind bars?

If there was reason to believe that he would maim or murder his old victims (or otherwise committ a violent offense) after being released, then 30 years is reasonable. If there was no reason to believe this, then he should've had 2 years. 5, maximum.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

It's not impossible that there's been an outrageous breach of justice but it's unlikely. I agree that there may be more to this case and it's unlikely we'll learn more. Where is the ACLU? You think they would have been all over this one.

Thy're not using the fact that he's been in prison, they're claiming that he's committed prison infractions, in other words, not being a good prisoner and behaving himself.

That said, I agree that the sentence sounds ludicrous. Was there an element of violence involved? The article says that assault wasn't brought up in the trial. Was there reason to believe that this man would go back to his old victims and exact revenge for putting him behind bars?

If there was reason to believe that he would maim or murder his old victims (or otherwise committ a violent offense) after being released, then 30 years is reasonable. If there was no reason to believe this, then he should've had 2 years. 5, maximum.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Since the assault was never brought up in the trial and he was never charged with it it's irrelevant to his sentance.

Prison infractions is a very vague term. It could be that he brewed jail house booze in his cell. Perhaps he was caught smoking cigarettes (many jails and prisons are now smoke-free). It could be that he was fighting. Perhaps it was self defense. Perhaps he's just violent. We just don't know.

That evil commie deserved it! He violated the sacred laws of property, without which the US (the greatest nation in the world), would become an evil commie cesspool like North Korea (who I hope George Bush righteously nukes). He should have gotten the death penalty (the best way to deal with crime, IMO).

That evil commie deserved it! He violated the sacred laws of property, without which the US (the greatest nation in the world), would become an evil commie cesspool like North Korea (who I hope George Bush righteously nukes). He should have gotten the death penalty (the best way to deal with crime, IMO).

Hear, Hear! Although the death penalty for stealing a TV is a little harsh. We should have given him a chance to mend his ways, à la Starship Troopers: a good lashing for the first offence, then a public execution if he reoffends. :mp5:

That evil commie deserved it! He violated the sacred laws of property, without which the US (the greatest nation in the world), would become an evil commie cesspool like North Korea (who I hope George Bush righteously nukes). He should have gotten the death penalty (the best way to deal with crime, IMO).Yes! We should make the death penalty compulsory for all crimes, then make all executions public. It would stop crime right in its tracks!

*A man is executed for stealing a cabbage* :rolleyes:

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The judge= Racist Nazi Bastard

Holy crap just make the guy pay for the TV and have like 4-6 months of community service, but 30 years is way too much, I think some of the more famous criminals of America's history have been sentenced for about less than 30 years right?

Anyone hear of the guy who tried to shoplift, I repeat SHOPLIFT a big screen? He walks in wearing a jacket, thinks, I'm gonna steal a TV, and instead of some small model he picks like a 40" or 50" or something big like that (sad to say I actually don't know exact dimensions of normal TV screens, but I can tell you comp screens :D ), throws his jacket over it, and proceeds to carry it out of the store. The workers try to stop him, like, Umm, you know you can't just walk out of here with that, right?? He pulls a knife, ASKS them to give him a 10 minute headstart cause hey, where's the fun in a footchase over a tv shoplifter if you don't let him hide first? So they immediately call the cops once he leaves the store, and the cops go out a searchin. Does he go to his house or something, try to hide? No, he goes to a McDonald's, cause apparently all that shoplifting (gives a new meaning to the word shopLIFTING) made ihm hungry or something. The cops apprehend him in McDonalds and find the TV in his truck in the parking lot. I'm serious, it was on the radio. I mean, that IS more trustworthy than the internet, after all. I think this guy deserves 30 years of remedial common sense class.

But concerning the judge handing down a 30-yr sentence for a TV theft, there is NO excuse whatsoever. I will even picket to get that judge kicked, and I hate pickets (cause nowadays I only see religious right picketers).

I'll bet there is a lot more to this story they are not reporting.

I'll bet there is a lot more to this story they are not reporting.

Thought so. At the time of the crime, the burglary was punishable by a sentence of life. Then there is the matter of 55 infractions while he was in prison.

Although life may be a bit much for burglary, the original article should have reported all the facts.


http://www.newsobserver.com/print/saturday/opinion/story/2431074p-8835525c.html

Thought so. At the time of the crime, the burglary was punishable by a sentence of life. Then there is the matter of 55 infractions while he was in prison.

Although life may be a bit much for burglary, the original article should have reported all the facts.


http://www.newsobserver.com/print/saturday/opinion/story/2431074p-8835525c.html
55 infractions like what? There's a big difference between brewing some jailhouse booze and raping the smaller inmates. If his infractions were minor the parole board should have cut him loose decades ago.

Dammit I knew those cross-burnings would get North Carolina in trouble. Now everybody has their eyes on us!

Actually the incidents took place a few miles from where I live. And one of them had a note from the KKK next to it :eek:.

Yes! We should make the death penalty compulsory for all crimes, then make all executions public. It would stop crime right in its tracks!

*A man is executed for stealing a cabbage*
Hey... that would DEFINITELY curb crime. :)

Dammit I knew those cross-burnings would get North Carolina in trouble. Now everybody has their eyes on us!

Actually the incidents took place a few miles from where I live. And one of them had a note from the KKK next to it :eek:.
They're cross LIGHTINGS not burnings. The KKK is a Christian organization and honors Jesus in everything they do. :rolleyes:

They're cross LIGHTINGS not burnings. The KKK is a Christian organization and honors Jesus in everything they do. :rolleyes:
I do hope you're being sarcastic...

I do hope you're being sarcastic...
Yes and no. I'm not in the KKK, and I don't like the organization, but they do consider it to be a cross lighting, not burning. I've met klansmen before. I bought my first illegal gun from one. They're not nice people.

Thy're not using the fact that he's been in prison, they're claiming that he's committed prison infractions, in other words, not being a good prisoner and behaving himself.

That said, I agree that the sentence sounds ludicrous. Was there an element of violence involved? The article says that assault wasn't brought up in the trial. Was there reason to believe that this man would go back to his old victims and exact revenge for putting him behind bars?

If there was reason to believe that he would maim or murder his old victims (or otherwise committ a violent offense) after being released, then 30 years is reasonable. If there was no reason to believe this, then he should've had 2 years. 5, maximum.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

The issue, is, that the sentence itself was far past what is applicable to the crime.

In the US we don't lock people up merely because "we think" things... there has to be clear guilt.

The judge= Racist Nazi Bastard

Holy crap just make the guy pay for the TV and have like 4-6 months of community service, but 30 years is way too much, I think some of the more famous criminals of America's history have been sentenced for about less than 30 years right?

Some of them, like Martha Stewart, for far far less than 30 years.

If the parole board turned this guy down 25 times, why the hostility and name calling toward the judge? The judge only gave him the original sentence, which may have been reasonable given the guy's prior record and facts of the case... no reason to jump to conclusions.

That evil commie deserved it! He violated the sacred laws of property, without which the US (the greatest nation in the world), would become an evil commie cesspool like North Korea (who I hope George Bush righteously nukes). He should have gotten the death penalty (the best way to deal with crime, IMO).

Right-wing flamers deserve the death penalty :sniper:

crap criminals have been sentenced for 30 years right?
Yes.

Right-wing flamers deserve the death penalty :sniper:


If you knew Letila at all, you'd realize that post was sarcastic in extremis. He's a self-described anarchist.

I am by no means defending this sentence, which seems extremely harsh (perhaps even unconstitutionally so), but I read that the man had prior convictions for robbery and other crimes. Prior convictions can add a lot of time onto a sentence.

Some of them, like Martha Stewart, for far far less than 30 years.

What a travesty of justice that was. I am no fan of Martha Stewart.. For that matter I am not against her either.

But really, what crime did she commit? She said she was innocent when the govt said she was guilty?

Her broker tells her that the owners of a company are selling their shares so she should too. What would you do in that circumstance? She didnt go and ask her brokers what the owners were doing, they volunteered it. Irrespective, she wasnt even charged with this offense, cause the govt couldnt make a case. She was charged with(I think) the conspiracy to commit the offense that the govt didnt even even bother charging her with.

I hope she wins on appeal. The jury forman is even on record saying that they convicted her because she was arrogant, too arrogant to even take the stand. You cant be prejudised against because you dont take the stand. But the whole class warfare thing comes into play and a bunch of lowlives decide that they can convict someone of a crime just because the person is arrogant.

I'll bet you he doesn't steal another TV.