NationStates Jolt Archive

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/01/05/3176454-sun.html

A Toronto man serving 160 years in a U.S. jail for four break and enters has to pay $72,000 before he can even apply for a transfer to a Canadian prison and a chance of early release.

Derek Twyman, 43, was jailed for four consecutive 40-year terms in 1989 for stealing from the homes of four influential residents of Guilford County, North Carolina. He's beginning his 18th year in prison.

"There's no mercy for inmates down here," his dad Donald, 73, told the Toronto Sun yesterday in his first interview in 17 years. "There is more of a social conscience in Canada."

To pass the time Derek, who won't be eligible for parole until 2067 when he will be 104, has posted listings on several "lonely inmates" Internet sites for a companion looking for someone with "boy-next-door good looks and a warm personality."

MOVED IN 1978

His dad Donald, with wife, Martha, 67, moved with their three children from Toronto to North Carolina in 1978 after the family opened a furniture retail store.

Derek was 14 at the time of the move and fell in with the wrong crowd, his dad said.

Court records show Derek was on parole for an arson charge in 1989 when he and others broke into the homes and stole an estimated $71,000 in goods.

"He was accused of being the Canadian mastermind," Donald said. "There was no weapon used and no one was hurt during the robberies."

VICTIMS' FEE

The family was ordered to pay a $72,000 victims' fee to the North Carolina Department of Corrections (NYDC) before Derek can be considered for a transfer, documents show.

NYDC spokesman George Dudley said U.S. law require inmates to pay a victims' fee before a transfer is considered.

"All the money goes to the victims in this case," Dudley said yesterday, adding if Derek is transferred to Canada he'll have to serve the same amount of time in jail.

"He is stuck here until we pay up," Donald said. "They are holding him for ransom and that is despicable."

The family doesn't have the money to pay the fee, Donald said.

He said his once-thriving furniture retail business was forced to shut after victims of the robberies filed an unsuccessful multi-million dollar civil suit against the family, in which numerous lawyers had to be hired.

"At our age, we have had enough," Donald said. "We didn't want to cause any problems because we are not from here."

Older brother, Kevin, 44, said Derek is looking forward to being transferred to Canada.

"He has a good attitude," Kevin said yesterday. "This has been hard on the entire family."

You people attach a stupefying amount of importance to property.

40 fucking years for b and e? Holy Chao. Imagine the sentence if he had hurt someone during the robberies? He'd probably get death if this is anything to go by.

Whiny. Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Cripes, you might as well be a mass murderer AND a drug dealer...this makes no sense...if you're going to get life in prison regardless, why not just KILL EVERYONE IN THE HOUSE? Less risky.

That's absolutely absurd.

Whiny. Can't do the time, don't do the crime.Whatever happened to punishment fitting the crime? I believe four consecutive forty-year sentences is a tad excessive for B&E.

Cost of keeping an inmate in prison in the US per year: $25,000
Total cost of keeping this man in prison throughout his term using this current figure: $4,000,000

Whatever happened to punishment fitting the crime? I believe four consecutive forty-year sentences is a tad excessive for B&E.

Agreed. This is incredibly absurd. People get less time than this for killing someone. Damn, this really isn't justice.

Agreed. This is incredibly absurd. People get less time than this for killing someone. Damn, this really isn't justice.

What it sounds like--and admittedly, I'm working with precious little evidence here--is a case where this guy robbed the wrong people, city fathers, if you will, and they used their influence to get the judge and the DA to bury this guy.

What it sounds like--and admittedly, I'm working with precious little evidence here--is a case where this guy robbed the wrong people, city fathers, if you will, and they used their influence to get the judge and the DA to bury this guy.

Which is hardly justice, if true.

Whiny. Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Don't be silly. It's a matter of proportion. When a robber of rich Americans get 140 years in jail while serial rapists walk after 6 months, something is seriously wrong with the criminal justice courts.

Rapists and murderers don't get that kind of time. The criminal justice system in the US is seriously out of whack. With mandatory minimums, three-strikes laws and the idiocy of our drug laws we need to scrap the whole system and start over again.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/01/05/3176454-sun.html



You people attach a stupefying amount of importance to property.

Now the question is, how did he break into the home, did he have a weapon, and did he take anything? All of these add time to a jail sentence.

Hey, people say, 'get tough on crime', so the politicians pass laws getting tough...what, and now you're not happy? You have only yourselves to blame.... *smug Canadian exits, knowing that only Deep Kimchi had the wherewithal to really dig up dirt on Canadian laws*

The time should be appealed, because that is simply madness. What though, is the justification for dismissing breaking and entering as "inconvienence" and implying a class struggle to boot. Just because a Judge should have his title reviewed or a lawyer tossed in front of the ethics comittee doesnt make a grand statement about American society.

Now the question is, how did he break into the home, did he have a weapon, and did he take anything? All of these add time to a jail sentence.

Yes yes, but what is the purpose of jail? It is punishment, or deterrent? As punishment, fine...people know to stick to murder and stay away from breaking and entering with this sort of sentence. As deterrent? Again, better off killing everyone in the house than risk getting caught and sentenced to this. Sure, maybe the death penalty could trump this as a threatened end...but I kind of doubt it.

Yes yes, but what is the purpose of jail? It is punishment, or deterrent? As punishment, fine...people know to stick to murder and stay away from breaking and entering with this sort of sentence. As deterrent? Again, better off killing everyone in the house than risk getting caught and sentenced to this. Sure, maybe the death penalty could trump this as a threatened end...but I kind of doubt it.

On top of this, he violated parole as well.

Considering the sentence and the houses that were broken in, I only have 2 words in mind: Money Talks.

This is beyond ridiculous. Granted, if one commits a crime, one should pay for it. However, 160 years in jail is just plain ridiculous. I mean, judging by the guy's current age, he'll be over 100 years old, or dead of old age by the time he's eligible for parole. I mean, granted he did the B&E's while on parole for something else, but hell, this is just going over the top.

As it was stated before, rapists, murderers and violent criminals get less time for worse crimes.

Obviously, money talks. Very loudly.

The sentence does seem very excessive. But he's not precisely blamless here: someone paroled for arson was not too bright if they subsequetly went on a burglary spree, too. There may have been additional penalties because of the arson (as in, "you should be doing X, but since this is your first time, we'll waive it. Get into trouble again and you can do the full time for that, too.")

If they let him out, how long until he burns down or robs a house again?

You can bitch and moan about the excessiveness all you want; it is ridiculous and Montesquieu is probably rolling around in his grave, but the fact remains he broke the law, and punishment comes from that. Be pissed at the system for monies ability to influence it (if that is indeed the case), but don't give the man your sympathy; he doesn't deserve it.

In the old days the punishment for his crimes would have been hanging. He's lucky he didn't do this in eighteenth century england.

On top of this, he violated parole as well.

Well, and his big flapping face all full of lies probably didn't help.

The sentence does seem very excessive. But he's not precisely blamless here: someone paroled for arson was not too bright if they subsequetly went on a burglary spree, too. There may have been additional penalties because of the arson (as in, "you should be doing X, but since this is your first time, we'll waive it. Get into trouble again and you can do the full time for that, too.")

Granted, he deserves hard time, but such a sentence is just...ridiculous. It undermines the public's faith in the system, which is bad in and of itself.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features...76454-sun.html


Quote:
A Toronto man serving 160 years in a U.S. jail for four break and enters has to pay $72,000 before he can even apply for a transfer to a Canadian prison and a chance of early release.

Derek Twyman, 43, was jailed for four consecutive 40-year terms in 1989 for stealing from the homes of four influential residents of Guilford County, North Carolina. He's beginning his 18th year in prison.

"There's no mercy for inmates down here," his dad Donald, 73, told the Toronto Sun yesterday in his first interview in 17 years. "There is more of a social conscience in Canada."

To pass the time Derek, who won't be eligible for parole until 2067 when he will be 104, has posted listings on several "lonely inmates" Internet sites for a companion looking for someone with "boy-next-door good looks and a warm personality."

MOVED IN 1978

His dad Donald, with wife, Martha, 67, moved with their three children from Toronto to North Carolina in 1978 after the family opened a furniture retail store.

Derek was 14 at the time of the move and fell in with the wrong crowd, his dad said.

Court records show Derek was on parole for an arson charge in 1989 when he and others broke into the homes and stole an estimated $71,000 in goods.

"He was accused of being the Canadian mastermind," Donald said. "There was no weapon used and no one was hurt during the robberies."

VICTIMS' FEE

The family was ordered to pay a $72,000 victims' fee to the North Carolina Department of Corrections (NYDC) before Derek can be considered for a transfer, documents show.

NYDC spokesman George Dudley said U.S. law require inmates to pay a victims' fee before a transfer is considered.

"All the money goes to the victims in this case," Dudley said yesterday, adding if Derek is transferred to Canada he'll have to serve the same amount of time in jail.

"He is stuck here until we pay up," Donald said. "They are holding him for ransom and that is despicable."

The family doesn't have the money to pay the fee, Donald said.

He said his once-thriving furniture retail business was forced to shut after victims of the robberies filed an unsuccessful multi-million dollar civil suit against the family, in which numerous lawyers had to be hired.

"At our age, we have had enough," Donald said. "We didn't want to cause any problems because we are not from here."

Older brother, Kevin, 44, said Derek is looking forward to being transferred to Canada.

"He has a good attitude," Kevin said yesterday. "This has been hard on the entire family."

You people attach a stupefying amount of importance to property.

That is too excessive. I know he committed a crime but shit, come one 160 years for that. It makes no sense what so ever. I thought people were supposed to be protected by that sort of thing under the Eighth Amendment. They should have definitely tried to appeal that bullshit decision.

That is too excessive. I know he committed a crime but shit, come one 160 years for that. It makes no sense what so ever. I thought people were supposed to be protected by that sort of thing under the Eighth Amendment. They should have definitely tried to appeal that bullshit decision.

I do believe this is the definition of "excessive".

He broke the law, and not in an innocent, “I’m trying to feed my family” way. He’s just as greedy as those homeowners. Fuck, seems like his family was fairly well off. I’ve no pity for someone like that.
He just makes criminals with real extenuating circumstances look bad.

However, any sentence over one hundred years is excessive. If fact, the entire system of sentences is ridiculous and inefficient, but that’s a different discussion I think.

What it sounds like--and admittedly, I'm working with precious little evidence here--is a case where this guy robbed the wrong people, city fathers, if you will, and they used their influence to get the judge and the DA to bury this guy.

Then turn around and Sue the family of the guy.
He said his once-thriving furniture retail business was forced to shut after victims of the robberies filed an unsuccessful multi-million dollar civil suit against the family, in which numerous lawyers had to be hired.

How is it THERE fault? It's not like they profited from it. I'm suprised they just didn't toss the whole family in jail.

Now the question is, how did he break into the home, did he have a weapon, and did he take anything? All of these add time to a jail sentence. He was with some others. They were unarmed.

I find it rather funny that while this is big news in Canada (though he has been in the US since age 14... 30 years ago) that the story doesn't even exist on American media -- not a blip on MSNBC, CNN or Fox.

Rapists and murderers don't get that kind of time. The criminal justice system in the US is seriously out of whack. With mandatory minimums, three-strikes laws and the idiocy of our drug laws we need to scrap the whole system and start over again.

You fool, we have a good system of justice. Justice in America is like a vending machine. The more money you put into it, the more sweet goodies you get out of it. What could EVER be wrong with that system? *insert appropriate smiley here.*

I find it rather funny that while this is big news in Canada (though he has been in the US since age 14... 30 years ago) that the story doesn't even exist on American media -- not a blip on MSNBC, CNN or Fox.

Hilarious, yes. :rolleyes:

Not surprised. We have that kind of crap all the time.

I forget when and which state but a guy got forty years for violating the Sodomy law. His crime? Oral on his wife.

Not surprised. We have that kind of crap all the time.

I forget when and which state but a guy got forty years for violating the Sodomy law. His crime? Oral on his wife.

Well, I suppose sodomy is technically breaking and entering.

Well, I suppose sodomy is technically breaking and entering.

:D

I might have to quote that!

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/01/05/3176454-sun.html



You people attach a stupefying amount of importance to property.

Four forty year terms for robbery? Did he use the desecrated corpses of babies and puppies as tools to break in? Holy Christ that's uncalled for!

Well, I suppose sodomy is technically breaking and entering.

It's assault and battery if they don't use lube. ;)

Whiny. Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

So I assume that if a kid steals from your appletree, you believe it is fine to blow his head off with a shotgun ?

40 fucking years for b and e? Holy Chao. Imagine the sentence if he had hurt someone during the robberies? He'd probably get death if this is anything to go by.

40 years per B&E because a) it wasn't a single crime, but rather a spree, and b) he was ALREADY ON PAROLE FOR ARSON.

Wow. I can't believe people actually think the little twit shouldn't have gotten this much time. He's a repeat offender who has already show marked anti-social tendencies.

Sure, it's fun to point at the big, bad Americans and say they're doing it just because they're assholes...but perhaps, just perhaps, he shouldn't have broken the law? Eh?

You people attach a stupefying amount of importance to property.

No, we place a "stupefying amount of importance" on the rights of individuals to be secure in their homes, and on the rights of individuals not to be deprived of the fruits of their hard work by criminals.

This punk should have considered the likelihood that he would rot in prison before he chose to engage in repeated criminal activity. Unfortunately for him, he didn't, and he didn't do so in a state that deals harshly with criminals. Sucks for him.

Of course, since so many Canadians have such a superior "social conscience" to us bad ol' Americans, maybe they can help raise the "ransom" and bring the poor oppressed boy back home to the Great White North. How about sponsoring a Molson-chugging contest? Or maybe an ice-fishing derby? I'm sure they can think of something.

Wait, I've got it! They can donate some of the money they save by having socialized medicine ;)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/01/05/3176454-sun.html

You people attach a stupefying amount of importance to property.

I'll admit that 160 years is a little much, but on the other hand, bugger off. If someone broke into your place and stole your stuff, you'd be crying like a little girl about how you were violated.

As has already been pointed out, this undermines the credibility of the justice system. If you're going to get a life sentence for a relatively minor offence, what's to deter you from committing a more serious crime, such as assaulting someone? Or is that somehow less serious than crimes against property?

As has already been pointed out, this undermines the credibility of the justice system. If you're going to get a life sentence for a relatively minor offence, what's to deter you from committing a more serious crime, such as assaulting someone? Or is that somehow less serious than crimes against property?

No. The electric chair. No.

No. The electric chair. No.

I was hoping someone would say something stupid like that. You're proving my point for me. If (in your barbaric society) you get death for assault, what's to deter you from committing murder?

Not to mention that, unless I'm mistaken, assault isn't a capital offence in the US, so you haven't even answered my question.

As has already been pointed out, this undermines the credibility of the justice system. If you're going to get a life sentence for a relatively minor offence, what's to deter you from committing a more serious crime, such as assaulting someone? Or is that somehow less serious than crimes against property?
It doesn't even make sense, since the right to property is an elaboration of the right to self-ownership ; you cannot allow a violation of the one without allowing one of the other. If American judges consistently applied this logic, rape would be heavily punishable. I am not sure if the American legal system recognises this though. At any rate, this guy is an idiot, but the sentence is far out of proportion to the crime. Even if due to prior arson charges, it could be somewhat lower. Can he not appeal?

If every person that did a break and enter got 160 years then noone would do it anymore. And that guy was after someone with "boy next door" good looks... i can't exactly pity him. Maybe his retarded brain made him do it seeing it made him gay.

If every person that did a break and enter got 160 years then noone would do it anymore. And that guy was after someone with "boy next door" good looks... i can't exactly pity him. Maybe his retarded brain made him do it seeing it made him gay.

Well? They once killed people for doing that and it didn't stop it. Certain countries cut of hands and it doesn't stop.

Even in the US; the death penalty doesn't stop murder.....

If every person that did a break and enter got 160 years then noone would do it anymore.
I have a suspicion the prior arson charges are related.

Maybe his retarded brain made him do it seeing it made him gay.
I fail to see the causal correlation.

No, we place a "stupefying amount of importance" on the rights of individuals to be secure in their homes, and on the rights of individuals not to be deprived of the fruits of their hard work by criminals.

This punk should have considered the likelihood that he would rot in prison before he chose to engage in repeated criminal activity. Unfortunately for him, he didn't, and he didn't do so in a state that deals harshly with criminals. Sucks for him.

Of course, since so many Canadians have such a superior "social conscience" to us bad ol' Americans, maybe they can help raise the "ransom" and bring the poor oppressed boy back home to the Great White North. How about sponsoring a Molson-chugging contest? Or maybe an ice-fishing derby? I'm sure they can think of something.

Wait, I've got it! They can donate some of the money they save by having socialized medicine ;)

The point is not whether he should do hard crime-which is a given. He should. The point is whether 160 years for such a crime is just. I don't really think so. This is an extreme exagerration of penalties for crimes. 40 years? I could easily agree with something along those lines. But One Hundred and fucking sixty years for this? Hell no. The only reason for such(with what is given) is that he robbed rich people who knew powerful people. Even with parole this seems so incredibly excessive, that it is asinine.

Even with parole this seems so incredibly excessive, that it is asinine.
Can he not appeal? I'd argue that the Judge in the case overstepped his boundaries (could be wrong though - not too familiar with US law).

If they let him out, how long until he burns down or robs a house again?

After 18 years for b & E either he has got it or something is seriously wrong with how we are going about this.

Can he not appeal? I'd argue that the Judge in the case overstepped his boundaries (could be wrong though - not too familiar with US law).

You know, that I don't know. I have no specific knowledge of US law, at least no where near as much as a Lawyer would, but I have never once heard of such a large sentence for a similar crime. The most I have yet to here is 15 years, which may or may not include assault depending on the State, and even with parole, that should lie nowhere near the 160 year mark that is set here.

That being said, there are plenty of appeals one can go through, up to the Supreme Court. I would suspect this sentence will be overturned somewhere along the lines.

You know, that I don't know. I have no specific knowledge of US law, at least no where near as much as a Lawyer would, but I have never once heard of such a large sentence for a similar crime. The most I have yet to here is 15 years, which may or may not include assault depending on the State, and even with parole, that should lie nowhere near the 160 year mark that is set here.
15 years I would consider reasonable - this? Insane. I wonder if murders get these many years in prison... As I said though, it could be the arson charges as others have suggested. Those are far more serious charges relative to their degree.

That being said, there are plenty of appeals one can go through, up to the Supreme Court. I would suspect this sentence will be overturned somewhere along the lines.
Given that the US is a common law system, it would depend on the reasoning used by the judge. I assume similar cases do not get similar punishments levied on the aggressor - thus it would bring the stare decisis doctrine into question, as well as the matter of proportionality.

I was hoping someone would say something stupid like that. You're proving my point for me. If (in your barbaric society) you get death for assault, what's to deter you from committing murder?


We're looking into crucifixion. It's one of the options which will address your concerns.

We're looking into crucifixion. It's one of the options which will address your concerns.
You're falling behind the times. :( Everyone nowadays knows how much the crowds enjoy the pyre, or even better yet, a good fight to the death between the criminals. Combine this with being televised, and you've got a sure winner. The court could even fund itself by charging admission to witness the spectacle and for broadcasting rights. :D Got a problem with this? Tell it to the Judge.

You're falling behind the times. :( Everyone nowadays knows how much the crowds enjoy the pyre, or even better yet, a good fight to the death between the criminals. :)

With rusty blades. *nods*

With rusty blades. *nods*
Nah, spoons would be more fun. :)

Nah, spoons would be more fun. :)

Chainsaws. Not just any type either: laser chainsaws.

You're falling behind the times. :( Everyone nowadays knows how much the crowds enjoy the pyre, or even better yet, a good fight to the death between the criminals. Combine this with being televised, and you've got a sure winner. The court could even fund itself by charging admission to witness the spectacle and for broadcasting rights. :D Got a problem with this? Tell it to the Judge.

That's all fine and dandy. But North Carolina is nothing if not traditional. So crucifixion it is.

There is nothing more enriching than taking the kids to the sunday crucifixion picnic after church. Good old fashioned family values. That is what the SE united states are about.

Whiny. Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

And the baseless, dis-compassionate, conservative rhetoric award goes to...

The beauty of serving sentences simultanesously in UK is that this guy would have only been in jail for a maximum of 40 years and eligible for parole after 22 years (if I calculated correctly). Still, 22 years for a bit of arson and b&e when it's not even known if he harmed someone is a bit excessive.

... Especially for a juvenille.

The beauty of serving sentences simultanesously in UK is that this guy would have only been in jail for a maximum of 40 years and eligible for parole after 22 years (if I calculated correctly). Still, 22 years for a bit of arson and b&e when it's not even known if he harmed someone is a bit excessive.

... Especially for a juvenille.

They used to hand children in Mass. for mouthing off at their parents. Consider this progress.

They used to hand children in Mass. for mouthing off at their parents. Consider this progress.I don't understand your terminology. It looks to me like you're saying that parents would hand over their children to priests during mass as a punishment - 'Suck it up bitch'.

I don't understand your terminology. It looks to me like you're saying that parents would hand over their children to priests during mass as a punishment - 'Suck it up bitch'.

Ooops. Hang, not hand.

And Mass. = Massachusetts.

Shouldn't talk on the phone, watch tv, and type I guess.

They used to hand children in Mass. for mouthing off at their parents. Consider this progress.
These would be the progressive liberal values of the NE states (in stark contradistinction to the SE state's family values) I am guessing? :D

40 years for breaking and entering?!?!?!

If he'd commited murder in the UK, he'd be out by now.

Ooops. Hang, not hand.

And Mass. = Massachusetts.

Shouldn't talk on the phone, watch tv, and type I guess.I am mortified that you completely ignored by catholic priest joke.

Hanging for bad langauge? That reminds me of this -
http://www.partiallyclips.com/index.php?id=1006

I must say I'm surprised to see you all dumbfounded (I apologize for the wording) by the sentence this man has gotten.
Well, I definitely think it's excessive as well, but just look at some of the laws of the nation:

Alabama, Auburn: Men who deflower virgins, regardless of age or marital status, may face five years of incarceration.

New York, New York: Jumping off a building is punishable with death. (seriously, check your lawbooks on this one)

New York, Greene: It's illegal to eat peanuts while walking backwards during a concert or other musical festivity.

Texas: It's illegal to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a building.

And my favourite:

Texas: A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed.

America, land of righteousness and home of the just.

I must say I'm surprised to see you all dumbfounded (I apologize for the wording) by the sentence this man has gotten.
Well, I definitely think it's excessive as well, but just look at some of the laws of the nation:

Alabama, Auburn: Men who deflower virgins, regardless of age or marital status, may face five years of incarceration.

New York, New York: Jumping off a building is punishable with death. (seriously, check your lawbooks on this one)

New York, Greene: It's illegal to eat peanuts while walking backwards during a concert or other musical festivity.

Texas: It's illegal to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a building.

And my favourite:

Texas: A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed.

America, land of righteousness and home of the just.You do know some those laws are hundreds of years old and not enforced anymore, right?

He was with some others. They were unarmed.

Then how did they break in?

I find it rather funny that while this is big news in Canada (though he has been in the US since age 14... 30 years ago) that the story doesn't even exist on American media -- not a blip on MSNBC, CNN or Fox.

That's because this is indeed a non-story. The fact that he is Canadian makes it big news there but it does not matter. If he gets extradited, he serves the same amount of time up there too so what are we arguing about?

You fool, we have a good system of justice. Justice in America is like a vending machine. The more money you put into it, the more sweet goodies you get out of it. What could EVER be wrong with that system? *insert appropriate smiley here.*

Unless the person on Trial is rich as well.

So I assume that if a kid steals from your appletree, you believe it is fine to blow his head off with a shotgun ?

Tresspessing and destruction of private property? People have been known to get shot for tresspressing on someone else's land.

As has already been pointed out, this undermines the credibility of the justice system. If you're going to get a life sentence for a relatively minor offence, what's to deter you from committing a more serious crime, such as assaulting someone? Or is that somehow less serious than crimes against property?

You mean offenses. 40 PER BREAK IN. Not to mention violating parole so tack on however long on top of that. People do need to learn how to read.

It doesn't even make sense, since the right to property is an elaboration of the right to self-ownership ; you cannot allow a violation of the one without allowing one of the other. If American judges consistently applied this logic, rape would be heavily punishable. I am not sure if the American legal system recognises this though. At any rate, this guy is an idiot, but the sentence is far out of proportion to the crime. Even if due to prior arson charges, it could be somewhat lower. Can he not appeal?

I think this was a state court and not a federal court so any appeal has to go through the state system. Do not know if it was done or not. If not then his lawyers are just as stupid as this guy was.

Then how did they break in?

How does how they broke in have any relevence? Does the US punish you more severely for going in through a window than a door or what?

Welcome to the American Justice system.

American Injustice System.

How does how they broke in have any relevence? Does the US punish you more severely for going in through a window than a door or what?

Because if they used something to break into a house, then whatever they use could be considered a weapon.

Because if they used something to break into a house, then whatever they use could be considered a weapon.

Silly rule. It's possible to kill a man with your bare hands, does that mean that every burglary where the theif has his hands with him should be treated as if he's carrying a weapon?

And my favourite:

Texas: A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed.


No, no, my favourite is this one, also from Texas:


When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/texas/

I agree that the man should have to go to jail for B&E, but that is very excessive.

Now the question is, how did he break into the home, did he have a weapon, and did he take anything? All of these add time to a jail sentence.
It says nobody was hurt in the break-ins.

Cripes, you might as well be a mass murderer AND a drug dealer...this makes no sense...if you're going to get life in prison regardless, why not just KILL EVERYONE IN THE HOUSE? Less risky.

And that, my man (or woman), is why they try to have sane sentencing in other parts of the world....

I agree that the man should have to go to jail for B&E, but that is very excessive.


It says nobody was hurt in the break-ins.

Does not matter if anyone was hurt or not if the breakin happened with a weapon.

No, we place a "stupefying amount of importance" on the rights of individuals to be secure in their homes, and on the rights of individuals not to be deprived of the fruits of their hard work by criminals.
Nobody is arguing that he should have got off free. People are pointing out the absurdity of the system which gives lighter sentences to drug dealers, murderers, rapists and assailants. Apparently, crimes against the property of the rich are worse than all the others.

Wait, I've got it! They can donate some of the money they save by having socialized medicine ;)

If you want to bitch about tax money being spent, they're going to be wasting $25,000 per year on this guy (and that figure will probably rise with inflation).

You mean offenses. 40 PER BREAK IN. Not to mention violating parole so tack on however long on top of that. People do need to learn how to read.
40 years for one B&E is also excessive, no matter what.

Does not matter if anyone was hurt or not if the breakin happened with a weapon.
I suppose what you're getting at is whether there was an intent to hurt people, which should be punished, I would agree. But carrying a weapon doesn't automatically mean you can throw an assault charge on the criminal either.

Does not matter if anyone was hurt or not if the breakin happened with a weapon.


Unless he did it with a chainsaw and a torture kit, he doesnt deserve three 40 year sentences.

In the old days the punishment for his crimes would have been hanging. He's lucky he didn't do this in eighteenth century england.
That system wasn't really about punishing crime so much as thinning out the underclass.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/01/05/3176454-sun.html



You people attach a stupefying amount of importance to property.

Unless there is homicide attached to that I can't see 40 years for a B&E, that's a little too much. I'm shocked on this one, the American Justice System is fubar'd beyond repair but this is just WTF.

The punishment does not fit the crime. If I am going to get hanging for stealing a single sheep then I might as well steal twenty sheep and shoot the farm owner while I am at it.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/01/05/3176454-sun.html

A Toronto man serving 160 years in a U.S. jail for four break and enters has to pay $72,000 before he can even apply for a transfer to a Canadian prison and a chance of early release.

Derek Twyman, 43, was jailed for four consecutive 40-year terms in 1989 for stealing from the homes of four influential residents of Guilford County, North Carolina. He's beginning his 18th year in prison.

"There's no mercy for inmates down here," his dad Donald, 73, told the Toronto Sun yesterday in his first interview in 17 years. "There is more of a social conscience in Canada."

To pass the time Derek, who won't be eligible for parole until 2067 when he will be 104, has posted listings on several "lonely inmates" Internet sites for a companion looking for someone with "boy-next-door good looks and a warm personality."

MOVED IN 1978

His dad Donald, with wife, Martha, 67, moved with their three children from Toronto to North Carolina in 1978 after the family opened a furniture retail store.

Derek was 14 at the time of the move and fell in with the wrong crowd, his dad said.

Court records show Derek was on parole for an arson charge in 1989 when he and others broke into the homes and stole an estimated $71,000 in goods.

"He was accused of being the Canadian mastermind," Donald said. "There was no weapon used and no one was hurt during the robberies."

VICTIMS' FEE

The family was ordered to pay a $72,000 victims' fee to the North Carolina Department of Corrections (NYDC) before Derek can be considered for a transfer, documents show.

NYDC spokesman George Dudley said U.S. law require inmates to pay a victims' fee before a transfer is considered.

"All the money goes to the victims in this case," Dudley said yesterday, adding if Derek is transferred to Canada he'll have to serve the same amount of time in jail.

"He is stuck here until we pay up," Donald said. "They are holding him for ransom and that is despicable."

The family doesn't have the money to pay the fee, Donald said.

He said his once-thriving furniture retail business was forced to shut after victims of the robberies filed an unsuccessful multi-million dollar civil suit against the family, in which numerous lawyers had to be hired.

"At our age, we have had enough," Donald said. "We didn't want to cause any problems because we are not from here."

Older brother, Kevin, 44, said Derek is looking forward to being transferred to Canada.

"He has a good attitude," Kevin said yesterday. "This has been hard on the entire family."

You people attach a stupefying amount of importance to property.

Hmmm... I smell a rat. The language of the article (and the OP, as well) smacks of bias. Details are lacking. I cannot seem to find any version of this elsewhere. The only information for Derek Twyman that I could find is his personal ad (http://www.cyberspace-inmates.com/twyman.htm), which gives a different age than the article, and says "With the help of my lawyer I am expecting to be released (out) within the next 6 to 8 months".
I'm not going to call BS just yet, but I would like to see an unbiased source, or failing that a source that at least gives the other side.


I find it rather funny that while this is big news in Canada (though he has been in the US since age 14... 30 years ago) that the story doesn't even exist on American media -- not a blip on MSNBC, CNN or Fox.
That's because this is indeed a non-story. The fact that he is Canadian makes it big news there but it does not matter. If he gets extradited, he serves the same amount of time up there too so what are we arguing about?

It amy not be making the news outside the OP's source for other reasons...

I must say I'm surprised to see you all dumbfounded (I apologize for the wording) by the sentence this man has gotten.
Well, I definitely think it's excessive as well, but just look at some of the laws of the nation:

Alabama, Auburn: Men who deflower virgins, regardless of age or marital status, may face five years of incarceration.

New York, New York: Jumping off a building is punishable with death. (seriously, check your lawbooks on this one)

New York, Greene: It's illegal to eat peanuts while walking backwards during a concert or other musical festivity.

Texas: It's illegal to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a building.

And my favourite:

Texas: A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed.

America, land of righteousness and home of the just.

No, no, my favourite is this one, also from Texas:

You do know some those laws are hundreds of years old and not enforced anymore, right?

Many of them are Urban Legends as well. be careful, especially if you are getting "laws" off dumblaws.com or a similar site - they are full of misleading and downright false information.

No, we place a "stupefying amount of importance" on the rights of individuals to be secure in their homes, and on the rights of individuals not to be deprived of the fruits of their hard work by criminals.

This punk should have considered the likelihood that he would rot in prison before he chose to engage in repeated criminal activity. Unfortunately for him, he didn't, and he didn't do so in a state that deals harshly with criminals. Sucks for him.

Of course, since so many Canadians have such a superior "social conscience" to us bad ol' Americans, maybe they can help raise the "ransom" and bring the poor oppressed boy back home to the Great White North. How about sponsoring a Molson-chugging contest? Or maybe an ice-fishing derby? I'm sure they can think of something.

Wait, I've got it! They can donate some of the money they save by having socialized medicine ;)

I think the jump you made in assuming these people were rich because of "hard work" somewhat gives away your bias.

40 fucking years for b and e? Holy Chao. Imagine the sentence if he had hurt someone during the robberies? He'd probably get death if this is anything to go by.

Here in the US, it's the number of times you do your crime that matter.

If you're habitual about it, you're going to end up being deliberately "aged out" of the criminal population.

Here in the US, it's been proven that the only effective treatment for recidivism is keeping you in prison until you're too old to do the crimes.

It's why our violent crime rate is down about 60 percent since the widespread introduction of this policy, and why our prison population is so large.

That's because this is indeed a non-story. The fact that he is Canadian makes it big news there but it does not matter. If he gets extradited, he serves the same amount of time up there too so what are we arguing about?

I thought it was about the undue importance you people south of the border place on crimes against property....

I thought it was about the undue importance you people south of the border place on crimes against property....

And his violation of parole?

It seems stupid that you get the same sentence on the third conviction whether it is a murder or simply a minor theft.

And his violation of parole?

...since when is violating parole grounds for 160 years incarceration?

...since when is violating parole grounds for 160 years incarceration?

He violated parole and thus will serve the rest of that sentence in prison as well. Maybe you should do a tad more research into this and find all the circumstances behind the case. I'm sure you can find it somewhere on the net.

Your biasness is pathetic.

The prison system just doesn't work.

Your biasness is pathetic.

Baseness, surely. (As "biasness" isn't, in fact, a legitimate word).

And anyway, as to the so-far mild attempts made in this thread by yourself (and others) to cast aspersions on my character on the basis of the lack of reporting on this story - kindly stuff it; I happened to see this story as the front-page headline on every copy of the Toronto Sun I came upon yesterday, but did not have the time to read - not 'til I was at home and online, surfing. My sole thought was to share what seemed like the tale of a particularly odious (and perhaps even politically-charged) miscarriage of justice with my highly-opinionated friends here on NS.

Unless of course you're simply being unreasonable, and all things considered AC2, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.

Hey, people say, 'get tough on crime', so the politicians pass laws getting tough...what, and now you're not happy? You have only yourselves to blame.... *smug Canadian exits, knowing that only Deep Kimchi had the wherewithal to really dig up dirt on Canadian laws*

They won't get away with that here if the Conservatives continue to piss off the other parties.

That's because this is indeed a non-story. The fact that he is Canadian makes it big news there but it does not matter. If he gets extradited, he serves the same amount of time up there too so what are we arguing about?

Actually, the maximum sentence for life is 25 years, though, in rare cases, they will make it consecutive sentences, but it's generally unheard of unless the convicted is a serial murderer or is considered, through psychiatric analysis to be dangerous to society.

This fellow wouldn't serve that much time here. If anything, he would get a bunch of concurrent life sentences, which are different from consecutive because of the way the system is handled here.

After all, one of Canada's favourite prison bitches got off easy. Karla got a mere bloody slap on the hand and 12 years for her crimes, which included murder and aggravated sexual assault, including assisting in the murder of her own sister. While Paul Bernardo got life without parole because he was deemed a dangerous offender. They committed the crimes together, but she got off easy because she sweet-talked the Crown Prosecution.

B & E won't get you much if they let someone like Karla off easily.

Does not matter if anyone was hurt or not if the breakin happened with a weapon.

That would be considered mitigating factor in a case here. Even if there was a weapon, the fact that it wasn't used would count against the Prosecution's case against the accused.

Thank God that murder 1 is life in prison here in the US. Now I know why I love the three strikes and your out rule.

Thank God that murder 1 is life in prison here in the US. Now I know why I love the three strikes and your out rule.

What exactly does "murder 1" have to do with a break & enter story?

What exactly does "murder 1" have to do with a break & enter story?

Nothing. :p

Just responding to other posts that say that murderers get less time in prison than this person got.

Thank God that murder 1 is life in prison here in the US. Now I know why I love the three strikes and your out rule.

Damn right. Just look how being harsh on murderers has kept your per capita murder rate well below that of more lenient countries.

Now the question is, how did he break into the home, did he have a weapon, and did he take anything? All of these add time to a jail sentence.

Don't know, no, and yes.

Court records show Derek was on parole for an arson charge in 1989 when he and others broke into the homes and stole an estimated $71,000 in goods.

"He was accused of being the Canadian mastermind," Donald said. "There was no weapon used and no one was hurt during the robberies."

If I controlled the US judicial system, I would probably give 12 years for b&e, and 20 for arson. Maybe 2 for violating patrol (don't think it's a crime but it probably should be). So thats 12*4+22= 70 years? OK maybe 40-60 would be more reasonable and 160 is totally over the top, especially when rapists get off easily; surely violating someone's body has to be at least a little worse than their home, right?

Still, I'm more for extending sentences on more serious crimes than reducing the less serious ones, but being as most people don't even live to 100 they have to start quite low just enough to build up for the really bad cases.

Though I don't pity this guy. He seems like an antisocial idiotic child who deserves everything he gets, I'm just worried that people will see this and think that since they wont get more time for murdering someone than breaking in, they might as well kill everyone just to avoid being caught.

Though I don't pity this guy. He seems like an antisocial idiotic child who deserves everything he gets, I'm just worried that people will see this and think that since they wont get more time for murdering someone than breaking in, they might as well kill everyone just to avoid being caught.

Yes because making a few mistakes as a kid should always mean you should lose the rest of your life.

God forbid we try something as hippy left wing as rehabilitation, you steal something as a 19 year old then you should die in prison dammit.

HHere in the US, it's been proven that the only effective treatment for recidivism is keeping you in prison until you're too old to do the crimes.
I don't think that's been proven... And if it should have been, I'd like to see more about it.

It's why our violent crime rate is down about 60 percent since the widespread introduction of this policy, and why our prison population is so large.
* Maybe a factor, but not the only reason for the decline.
* Is it an official policy?
* Violent crime is on the rise again.

If every person that did a break and enter got 160 years then noone would do it anymore. And that guy was after someone with "boy next door" good looks... i can't exactly pity him. Maybe his retarded brain made him do it seeing it made him gay.

Are you 12?

All i know is that when a convicted child rapist gets probation and a guy who did some b ane e's gets 160 years, something is really wrong with the justice system.

Minimal research would reveal the reasons behind this.

(A) North Carolina is a "three strikes" state. If you commit three or more felonies, you go to jail for life, with no possibility of parole.

(B) His crimes were not just "breaking and entering," which is nothing more than the illegal entry of another's home. He stole property as well, which is robbery. Of course the article won't say it's robbery, since that conjures up violent images and he's just a peaceful Canadian, no?

(C) The article states that the guy was on parole for a previous crime (arson). Parole violation is a serious crime in the U.S., as it represents a betrayal of the public's trust that one has reformed and can be trusted to behave as a responsible citizen; in most cases, parole violation adds a huge amount to a sentence independent of three strikes laws. In a three strikes state, it usually counts as a strike itself, in addition to the crime committed.

(D) You can't blame North Carolina for being tough on repeat offenders; it's recidivism rate is among the highest in the nation (with 61% of offenders rearrested within 3 years and almost half convicted of another crime in that same time period). The three strikes law was an effort to curb this rate.

This has nothing to do with the wealth of his victims. He violated the three strikes law (which, and I speak from experience living in a three-strikes state [Maryland], they make a very strong point of informing you of after your first offense) and went to jail. The article only mentions the wealth of his victims as a measure of tickling the class war bones of liberals who can't be bothered to do even minimal research into what happened. It's dishonesty at it's worst. He'd have gotten the same sentence if all he stole was a black and white TV's from a succession of old ladies' apartments.

This guy is 43 years old and has been in jail for 18 years, so logically he was 25 when he was locked up. The article states he fell into a bad crowd at the age of 14. That means he's potentially been committing crimes for as long eleven years. He is hardly an innocent child who was just led astray by bad folks and made a small handful of bad decisions. He's a career criminal, and was a legal adult for seven years prior to his last arrest. He knew what he was doing and didn't care.

And finally, one case is not an accurate indicator of the state of the justice system in a nation that has got dozens of independent and interrelated justice systems.

If every person that did a break and enter got 160 years then noone would do it anymore. And that guy was after someone with "boy next door" good looks... i can't exactly pity him. Maybe his retarded brain made him do it seeing it made him gay.

Troll. If breaking and entering gets a harsher punishment than murder then a person might decide to commit a murder instead.

Minimal research would reveal the reasons behind this.

(A) North Carolina is a "three strikes" state. If you commit three or more felonies, you go to jail for life, with no possibility of parole.

Obviously you did do minimal research. The first state to introduce the 3 strikes law was Washington in 1993. North Carolina introduced it after this. The crimes committed took place in 1989.

Perhaps you can explain how he managed to break a law that wasn't yet in place?

He did the crimes, he should do the time.

Screw the fuck, he deserves every minute of it.

Not only that, but he was on parole for another, very serious, crime. Arson.

He violated parole and thus will serve the rest of that sentence in prison as well. Maybe you should do a tad more research into this and find all the circumstances behind the case. I'm sure you can find it somewhere on the net.

Your biasness is pathetic.
That argument only makes even a modicum of sense if you're talking about the sentences running concurrently. Even then, you're still talking about 40 years for B&E and a parole violation, which is massive. But making them consecutive means the judge wanted to extract an extra pound of flesh in this case, which may be legal, but isn't right.

He did the crimes, he should do the time.

Screw the fuck, he deserves every minute of it.

Not only that, but he was on parole for another, very serious, crime. Arson.

Punishment doesn't fit the crime.



Begun, the cliche war has.

Yes because making a few mistakes as a kid should always mean you should lose the rest of your life.

God forbid we try something as hippy left wing as rehabilitation, you steal something as a 19 year old then you should die in prison dammit.

He's rotting in prison not because he stole something, but because we was an aggressive repeat offender. Not only did he break into these people's homes and steal stuff, but he did it while he was on parole for arson.

If he had done this under normal circumstances, he would have gotten a lesser sentence, but parole violation is big in US law, and you go hard for doing that.

He did the crimes, he should do the time.

Screw the fuck, he deserves every minute of it.

Not only that, but he was on parole for another, very serious, crime. Arson.

You guys seems to have issues working out proportional responses to things. Over a century of incarceration is not a fitting punishment for breaking into some houses.

Punishment doesn't fit the crime.


From your point of view, no.

From the jury and the judges point of view, on the other hand...

He should have plead down.

He did the crimes, he should do the time.

Screw the fuck, he deserves every minute of it.

Not only that, but he was on parole for another, very serious, crime. Arson.

No bad language please.

He's rotting in prison not because he stole something, but because we was an aggressive repeat offender. Not only did he break into these people's homes and steal stuff, but he did it while he was on parole for arson.

If he had done this under normal circumstances, he would have gotten a lesser sentence, but parole violation is big in US law, and you go hard for doing that.

Where is he accused of being aggressive? No people were hurt during the commision of his crimes.

You guys seems to have issues working out proportional responses to things. Over a century of incarceration is not a fitting punishment for breaking into some houses.

Parole violation is what he's hurting the most for, not for the B&E bit.

You guys seems to have issues working out proportional responses to things. Over a century of incarceration is not a fitting punishment for breaking into some houses.

What can we say? This is the United States, home of the Zero Tolerance Policy in schools. Where carrying a nail clipper can get you expelled for carrying a weapon and stealing ice cream can get you double digit prison sentence, even as a first-time kid.

No bad language please.

As always, I say what I want.

Parole violation is what he's hurting the most for, not for the B&E bit.

So every parole voilation in the US recieves a sentence of 40 years?

Where is he accused of being aggressive? No people were hurt during the commision of his crimes.

He is accused of being aggressive as per his prior commission of the crime of arson.

So every parole voilation in the US recieves a sentence of 40 years?

It varies on a state by state basis, as well as a view of the severity of the crime.

He is accused of being aggressive as per his prior commission of the crime of arson.

Was anybody injured due to his arson? If yes then you can call aggression, if no then its a simple crime against property.

From your point of view, no.

From the jury and the judges point of view, on the other hand...

He should have plead down.

Well if a judge thinks it then it must be right and fair. Kinda makes you wonder why you don't hear more about sentences like this, I'm sure people violate parole on a fairly regular basis, probably parole for crimes more serious than arson and violated with crimes more serious than robbery and breaking and entering.

Obviously you did do minimal research. The first state to introduce the 3 strikes law was Washington in 1993. North Carolina introduced it after this. The crimes committed took place in 1989.

Perhaps you can explain how he managed to break a law that wasn't yet in place?

Repeat offender laws like this have existed in various forms for more than a century. North Carolina is no exception.

As always, I say what I want.

Not on this forum you don't. There are rules against foul language. Check the moderation forum to see my point.

Was anybody injured due to his arson? If yes then you can call aggression, if no then its a simple crime against property.

Are you kidding me? He committed arson, an act which could easily have injured dozens. That is a rather aggressive crime.

Repeat offender laws like this have existed in various forms for more than a century. North Carolina is no exception.

Really? What is the name of the law it would have fallen under in North Carolina then?

Not on this forum you don't. There are rules against foul language. Check the moderation forum to see my point.

Hey n00b: Get a life.

Really? What is the name of the law it would have fallen under in North Carolina then?

Best of luck sorting through the North Carolina State Law.

Are you kidding me? He committed arson, an act which could easily have injured dozens. That is a rather aggressive crime.

Could.

Today I drove into town where I could have knocked someone over killing them. I didn't but I could have. Should I turn myself in for dangerous driving now or wait for the police to come get me?

What might happen doesn't matter, what actually happens does.

You guys seems to have issues working out proportional responses to things. Over a century of incarceration is not a fitting punishment for breaking into some houses.

Parole violation is what he's hurting the most for, not for the B&E bit.

Over a century of incarceration is not a fitting punishment for parole violation, either.

Best of luck sorting through the North Carolina State Law.

He claims there was a law covering it, he gets to find it.

Personally I would just accept that the judge in the case knows more about it than he does and didn't try to use any multi felony law to sentence the guy but Tirindor seems to know better.

...since when is violating parole grounds for 160 years incarceration?it's not, but the remaining jail time can be added back on and the charge of parole violation also added to his trial.

first of all, it was four B&E that resulted in the theft of $71,000 of goods. The family had to pay that (it sounds like Derek could not for one reason or another) add to that the victims right to sue... and you have a financially devistating situation.

the Four consecutive sentencing does seem unfair considering a simple B&E, but is that all that happened? Granted he was not armed, but that doesn't mean addtional damage was not done. Criminal Property Damage may have been the lesser charge and also factored into the sentencing.

Some things not mention in the article...
It's not mention that it's Four Consecutive 40 year terms w/o parole. After serving the minimal time, he will become elegible for parole and must go (again) through the parole process. now added to the fact that he was under parole when he did the four break ins will work against him in getting parole, but he will get his chance.

the extent of his "rap" sheet is not mentioned... if it's true that "he fell into a bad crowed" then is B&E and Arson the only things on it? maybe, maybe not. he may have had a whole string of crimes as he "Fell into a bad crowd" when he moved to the US. And how many counts of Arson?

the quality of his defense lawyer. he may have had a lawyer that barely passed law school... as for any appeal, that would have to go through his lawyer... after 17 years tho, it doesn't sound like any appeal succeeded.

as for paying $72,000... if that is written into the law, then it's the law. Since North Carolina has no jurisdiction nor control over the prison system in another state, much less another country, it's not unreasonable to require that the money be paid before the prisoner is moved to another facility in another country.

Since $71,000 of goods were stolen (that's about $17,750 per count), then the article has it wrong, it's not just B&E, but Theft; more serious than B&E... what else was left out or put through the spin cycle by the newspaper?

There were others involved... for all we know, they (others) turned on him and bargened to recieve lesser sentencing... or he might've actually have been the ringleader.

all in all, there was no excuse for him to violate parole, no reason to be involved with the B&E/Theft of anything while under parole. He screwed not only himself, but his family... maybe now, if he should get out, he'll try harder to stay away from breaking the law.

In Ireland, it is uncommon for a even a person who commits homicide (murder or aggravated manslaughter) to get more than twenty five years without parole. Irish justice is a joke. I wish we could have a system more like the one in the US.

it's not, but the remaining jail time can be added back on and the charge of parole violation also added to his trial.

first of all, it was four B&E that resulted in the theft of $71,000 of goods. The family had to pay that (it sounds like Derek could not for one reason or another) add to that the victims right to sue... and you have a financially devistating situation.

the Four consecutive sentencing does seem unfair considering a simple B&E, but is that all that happened? Granted he was not armed, but that doesn't mean addtional damage was not done. Criminal Property Damage may have been the lesser charge and also factored into the sentencing.

Some things not mention in the article...
It's not mention that it's Four Consecutive 40 year terms w/o parole. After serving the minimal time, he will become elegible for parole and must go (again) through the parole process. now added to the fact that he was under parole when he did the four break ins will work against him in getting parole, but he will get his chance.

the extent of his "rap" sheet is not mentioned... if it's true that "he fell into a bad crowed" then is B&E and Arson the only things on it? maybe, maybe not. he may have had a whole string of crimes as he "Fell into a bad crowd" when he moved to the US. And how many counts of Arson?

the quality of his defense lawyer. he may have had a lawyer that barely passed law school... as for any appeal, that would have to go through his lawyer... after 17 years tho, it doesn't sound like any appeal succeeded.

as for paying $72,000... if that is written into the law, then it's the law. Since North Carolina has no jurisdiction nor control over the prison system in another state, much less another country, it's not unreasonable to require that the money be paid before the prisoner is moved to another facility in another country.

Since $71,000 of goods were stolen (that's about $17,750 per count), then the article has it wrong, it's not just B&E, but Theft; more serious than B&E... what else was left out or put through the spin cycle by the newspaper?

There were others involved... for all we know, they (others) turned on him and bargened to recieve lesser sentencing... or he might've actually have been the ringleader.

all in all, there was no excuse for him to violate parole, no reason to be involved with the B&E/Theft of anything while under parole. He screwed not only himself, but his family... maybe now, if he should get out, he'll try harder to stay away from breaking the law.

The sentence is still too harsh. In Ireland most criminals who commit break and enters (called burglary in Ireland) don't even go to jail at all. They usually get probation and/or a fine. While I think that the Irish system is too soft, I think that the US goes too far to the other extreme.

The sentence is still too harsh. In Ireland most criminals who commit break and enters (called burglary in Ireland) don't even go to jail at all. They usually get probation and/or a fine. While I think that the Irish system is too soft, I think that the US goes too far to the other extreme.

Gotta take everything into account when you decide a sentence. There is more here than this article is stating. That much is for sure.

Gotta take everything into account when you decide a sentence. There is more here than this article is stating. That much is for sure.

I don't think there is. I've been flicking through some North Carolinan court reports for b and e online. Even without priors, the average jail time seems to be about 25 years.

North Carolinans seem to really like their stuff.

I don't think there is. I've been flicking through some North Carolinan court reports for b and e online. Even without priors, the average jail time seems to be about 25 years.

North Carolinans seem to really like their stuff.

Now add theft to that list and you have an increase in jail time.

I don't think there is. I've been flicking through some North Carolinan court reports for b and e online. Even without priors, the average jail time seems to be about 25 years.

North Carolinans seem to really like their stuff.

Which begs the question - didn't these people have household or contents insurance? Y'know, coverage against theft? And if they did, isn't it then rather disproportionately vindictive to go on to sue the guy's family into insolvency?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/01/05/3176454-sun.html



You people attach a stupefying amount of importance to property.

That's a pretty ridiculously large sentence for a person charged with larceny. Although $71,000 worth of goods stolen did entitle him to a fairly large sentence, four consecutive forty year terms is ridiculous. He'll be serving as long as murderers.

Now add theft to that list and you have an increase in jail time.

Yes, it's insanity.

Yes, it's insanity.

No. Its how it works.

Which begs the question - didn't these people have household or contents insurance? Y'know, coverage against theft? And if they did, isn't it then rather disproportionately vindictive to go on to sue the guy's family into insolvency?

That is again down to a daft flaw in the US legal system. In the UK if you sue and lose then you pay the other sides legal costs, in this case even though the guys family never lost the legal fees they incurred still bankrupted them.

I've found something for Florida. North Carolina probably has a similar system.

Burglary

Crime Sentence

Residential burglary without forced entry
Value of goods under $50
First burglary conviction 2-12 months probation
Second burglary conviction 2-24 months in prison
Third burglary conviction 3-8 years in prison (at least 3 years must be served)
Value of goods $50 to $500
First burglary conviction 1-6 months in prison
Second burglary conviction 1-4 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 5-12 years in prison (at least 5 years must be served)
Value of goods over $500
First burglary conviction 6-24 months in prison
Second burglary conviction 2-6 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 8-15 years in prison (at least 8 years must be served)

Residential burglary with forced entry
Value of goods under $50
First burglary conviction 8-24 months probation
Second burglary conviction 6-30 months in prison
Third burglary conviction 4-8 years in prison (at least 4 years must be served)
Value of goods $50 to $500
First burglary conviction 2-6 months in prison
Second burglary conviction 2-4 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 7-12 years in prison (at least 7 years must be served)
Value of goods over $500
First burglary conviction 6-30 months in prison
Second burglary conviction 4-8 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 10-16 years in prison (at least 10 years must be served)

Residential burglary involving possession of weapon other than firearm (with or without forced entry)
Value of goods under $50
First burglary conviction 6-18 months in prison
Second burglary conviction 2-4 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 6-10 years in prison (at least 6 years must be served)
Value of goods $50 to $500
First burglary conviction 1-3 years in prison
Second burglary conviction 4-7 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 9-16 years in prison (at least 9 years must be served)
Value of goods over $500
First burglary conviction 2-6 months in prison
Second burglary conviction 8-12 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 12-25 years in prison (at least 12 years must be served)

Residential burglary involving possession of firearm (with or without forced entry)
Value of goods under $50
First burglary conviction 4-8 years in prison
Second burglary conviction 10-18 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 20 years to life in prison (at least 15 years must be served)
Value of goods $50 to $500
First burglary conviction 8-12 years in prison
Second burglary conviction 15-25 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 25 years to life in prison (at least 17 years and 6 months must be served)
Value of goods over $500
First burglary conviction 12-16 years in prison
Second burglary conviction 18-25 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 30 years to life in prison (at least 22 years and 6 months must be served)

Non-Residential burglary without forced entry
Value of goods under $50
First burglary conviction 1-8 months probation
Second burglary conviction 1-18 months in prison
Third burglary conviction 2-6 years in prison (at least 2 years must be served)
Value of goods $50 to $500
First burglary conviction 1-4 months in prison
Second burglary conviction 1-3 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 4-10 years in prison (at least 4 years must be served)
Value of goods over $500
First burglary conviction 3-18 months in prison
Second burglary conviction 1-5 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 7-12 years in prison (at least 7 years must be served)

Non-Residential burglary with forced entry
Value of goods under $50
First burglary conviction 6-18 months probation
Second burglary conviction 3-24 months in prison
Third burglary conviction 3-6 years in prison (at least 3 years must be served)
Value of goods $50 to $500
First burglary conviction 1-5 months in prison
Second burglary conviction 1-3 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 6-10 years in prison (at least 6 years must be served)
Value of goods over $500
First burglary conviction 4-24 months in prison
Second burglary conviction 3-6 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 9-12 years in prison (at least 9 years must be served)

Non-Residential burglary involving possession of weapon other than firearm (with or without forced entry)
Value of goods under $50
First burglary conviction 6-18 months in prison
Second burglary conviction 2-4 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 6-10 years in prison (at least 6 years must be served)
Value of goods $50 to $500
First burglary conviction 1-3 years in prison
Second burglary conviction 4-7 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 9-16 years in prison (at least 9 years must be served)
Value of goods over $500
First burglary conviction 2-6 months in prison
Second burglary conviction 8-12 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 12-25 years in prison (at least 12 years must be served)

Non-Residential burglary involving possession of firearm (with or without forced entry)
Value of goods under $50
First burglary conviction 4-8 years in prison
Second burglary conviction 10-18 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 20 years to life in prison (at least 15 years must be served)
Value of goods $50 to $500
First burglary conviction 8-12 years in prison
Second burglary conviction 15-25 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 25 years to life in prison (at least 17 years and 6 months must be served)
Value of goods over $500
First burglary conviction 12-16 years in prison
Second burglary conviction 18-25 years in prison
Third burglary conviction 30 years to life in prison (at least 22 years and 6 months must be served)

No. Its how it works.

Does it work? Do your ludicrously long jail terms actually translate into low crime rates?

No. Its how it works.
I guarantee you that this is an unusual sentence, dude. No way are your average B&E people in NC, even as a parole violation, doing consecutive sentences on forty year hitches. This is damned odd, and to suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.

That's a pretty ridiculously large sentence for a person charged with larceny. Although $71,000 worth of goods stolen did entitle him to a fairly large sentence, four consecutive forty year terms is ridiculous. He'll be serving as long as murderers.

No argument. Hey folks, don't go thinking I feel he should be lightly spanked and put to bed with no dinner. He fucked up his own situation, there's no debating that. But what he's been handed is just plain wrong - and completely out of keeping with what his crimes warranted.

Had I been the judge, and had it been within my power to do so, I'd've at least made the sentences concurrent, if nothing else.

The sentence is still too harsh. In Ireland most criminals who commit break and enters (called burglary in Ireland) don't even go to jail at all. They usually get probation and/or a fine. While I think that the Irish system is too soft, I think that the US goes too far to the other extreme.at least we don't cane people for Theft and Vandalism. :rolleyes:

No bad language please.
Not on this forum you don't. There are rules against foul language. Check the moderation forum to see my point.

Two points:
1) As a relatively new poster, it would behoove you to become more familiar with the norms or language allowed here before attempting to impose standards that are not the norm.
2) Yes there are certain rules regarding offensive language.

Customizable Field Violations: Using offensive terms and language in a nation's motto, currency, national animal, and/or national title. Also applies to using a swastika or other offensive and/or pornographic imagery in a national flag. Huge flags (over 300x200 pixels) may also be deleted. Note that malicious use of any human or racial terms as national animals is expressly forbidden.

Obscenities: Sexually graphic images in flags (very strictly forbidden), obscene nation names, national animals and/or currencies. In-game obscenities should be reported through the Getting Help Page.

Offensive National Name: Using offensive language in a nation's name. Nation names are held to a higher standard than any other custom fields. Because nation names cannot be changed, this offense results in immediate deletion.

Civility: UN posters are presumed to be ambassadorial representatives from their nations to the UN. There is a higher expectation of decorum and politeness. Player attacks are not tolerated, whether uncouth language is part of the mix or not. Smilie spam is also more heavily policed in the UN, as it really has no place there at all.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023

So far none of those rules has been broken.

One additional point: You are a new poster. Andaluciae and I are both long term posters. None of us are Mods, but we are more familiar with the norms and rules. Some unknown new poster's attempt to play the mod is not appreciated. If you still feel that Andaluciae's language violates the rules, feel free to report it in the appropriate forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231).



it's not, but the remaining jail time can be added back on and the charge of parole violation also added to his trial.

first of all, it was four B&E that resulted in the theft of $71,000 of goods. The family had to pay that (it sounds like Derek could not for one reason or another) add to that the victims right to sue... and you have a financially devistating situation.

the Four consecutive sentencing does seem unfair considering a simple B&E, but is that all that happened? Granted he was not armed, but that doesn't mean addtional damage was not done. Criminal Property Damage may have been the lesser charge and also factored into the sentencing.

Some things not mention in the article...
It's not mention that it's Four Consecutive 40 year terms w/o parole. After serving the minimal time, he will become elegible for parole and must go (again) through the parole process. now added to the fact that he was under parole when he did the four break ins will work against him in getting parole, but he will get his chance.

the extent of his "rap" sheet is not mentioned... if it's true that "he fell into a bad crowed" then is B&E and Arson the only things on it? maybe, maybe not. he may have had a whole string of crimes as he "Fell into a bad crowd" when he moved to the US. And how many counts of Arson?

the quality of his defense lawyer. he may have had a lawyer that barely passed law school... as for any appeal, that would have to go through his lawyer... after 17 years tho, it doesn't sound like any appeal succeeded.

as for paying $72,000... if that is written into the law, then it's the law. Since North Carolina has no jurisdiction nor control over the prison system in another state, much less another country, it's not unreasonable to require that the money be paid before the prisoner is moved to another facility in another country.

Since $71,000 of goods were stolen (that's about $17,750 per count), then the article has it wrong, it's not just B&E, but Theft; more serious than B&E... what else was left out or put through the spin cycle by the newspaper?

There were others involved... for all we know, they (others) turned on him and bargened to recieve lesser sentencing... or he might've actually have been the ringleader.

all in all, there was no excuse for him to violate parole, no reason to be involved with the B&E/Theft of anything while under parole. He screwed not only himself, but his family... maybe now, if he should get out, he'll try harder to stay away from breaking the law.

I'll repeat what I said earlier. The acticle leaves out several details, as you point out, that give it a bias. The article appears to be the only coverage. Until someone can post another source, I will regard this as suspicious.

at least we don't cane people for Theft and Vandalism. :rolleyes:

No, you savages just execute people. A practice the rest of the civilised world has abandoned.

Does it work? Do your ludicrously long jail terms actually translate into low crime rates?

Did I say it did?

Did I say it did?

So you agree that the sentences imposed in the US are too long and not proportionate?

Having long jail sentences as a punishment for habitual thieves is expensive. It might be better to just have one of their hands cut off.

So you agree that the sentences imposed in the US are too long and not proportionate?

1) No.

and

2) No.

Having long jail sentences as a punishment for habitual thieves is expensive. It might be better to just have one of their hands cut off.

That would violate the 8th amendment.

That would violate the 8th amendment.

So does the eight amendment say that people can't be subject to inhumane punishment or what? One hundred and sixty years seems pretty inhumane to me.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/01/05/3176454-sun.html



You people attach a stupefying amount of importance to property.

There's a simple answer: Don't steal. Especially when on parole. Unfortunately, prison is too humane these days to be much of punishment.

So does the eight amendment say that people can't be subject to inhumane punishment or what? One hundred and sixty years seems pretty inhumane to me.

Fourty years does not seem inhumane when you add to the fact that he broke into homes and stole stuff multiple times. Add to that his violation of parole for a previous conviction....you just got yourself some hefty jail time. And since it does not look like this was a) appealed or b)not overturned, then it is indeed humane punishment.

The 8th amendment guards against cruel and unusual punishment.

The 8th amendment guards against cruel and unusual punishment.

Like the death penalty?

1) No.

and

2) No.

So you do claim that these sentences work?

Like the death penalty?

Actually, the death penalty is probably the most humane and uncruel punishment out there. What is more lenient: forcing someone to suffer in a cage, or mercifully ending their pitiful existence?

Actually, the death penalty is probably the most humane and uncruel punishment out there. What is more lenient: forcing someone to suffer in a cage, or mercifully ending their pitiful existence?

Bullshit.

Sitting in a cell waiting to be killed, watching the hours ticking away usually for a period of years constantly aware that you're going to be murdered.

If that isn't psychological torture I don't know what is.

Like the death penalty?

*snorts*

It is not inhumane to execute a murderer. If a burgler got the death penalty and did not kill anyone then you would be correct.

So you do claim that these sentences work?

Again, show me where I said it lowers crime. I never made that claim.

I've found something for Florida. North Carolina probably has a similar system.
-snip-

Ah thanks. I found an interesting article (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:IR7Ge_E_buMJ:www.gppf.org/default.asp%3Fpt%3Dnewsdescr%26RT%3D3%26RI%3D601+north+carolina+sentencing&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5) regarding NC's sentencing. The maximum sentence, as far as I can tell, should have been 150 months. This furthers my suspicions that the story is either BS or is missing important details.

No, you savages just execute people.

Ad Hominem and Ad Absurdum.

A practice the rest of the civilised world has abandoned.

Ad Numeram, Ad Populum, and Ad Absurdum.

Dismissed until further notice.

Again, show me where I said it lowers crime. I never made that claim.

You are confusing me here. Why have these prison sentences except to stop crime, either by rehabilitation or by fear of punishment?

Finally Found it!

Here (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0014)

let's deconstruct the sentencing. 40 years per count.

this chart shows that it was a class D felony that he was charged with. (http://www.ncsu.edu/police/Information/NCLaw.html)

Here B&E is defined, at worse, a Class H felony, (http://http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-54.html) assuming that it was homes and not religious places of worship (yes, B&E of any Religious building is worse. (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-54.1.html))

§ 14‑54. Breaking or entering buildings generally.

(a) Any person who breaks or enters any building with intent to commit any felony or larceny therein shall be punished as a Class H felon.

(b) Any person who wrongfully breaks or enters any building is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(c) As used in this section, "building" shall be construed to include any dwelling, dwelling house, uninhabited house, building under construction, building within the curtilage of a dwelling house, and any other structure designed to house or secure within it any activity or property. (1874‑5, c. 166; 1879, c. 323; Code, s. 996; Rev., s. 3333; C.S., s. 4235; 1955, c. 1015; 1969, c. 543, s. 3; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1, c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 26; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

Now Class H is 10 years, Class G is 15 years... Derek recieved 40 years per count, a Class D Felony. thus it wasn't B&E but Burglary (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-52.html).

§ 14‑52. Punishment for burglary.

Burglary in the first degree shall be punishable as a Class D felony, and burglary in the second degree shall be punishable as a Class G felony. (1870‑1, c. 222; Code, s. 994; 1889, c. 434, s. 2; Rev., s. 3330; C.S., s. 4233; 1941, c. 215, s. 1; 1949, c. 299, s. 2; 1973, c. 1201, s. 3; 1977, c. 871, s. 2; 1979, c. 672; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1, c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1151; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
note, Burglary in the FIRST DEGREE is a class D Felony... 40 years.
now what's the difference between First and Second?

SUBCHAPTER IV. OFFENSES AGAINST THE HABITATION AND OTHER BUILDINGS. (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.html)

Article 14.

Burglary and Other Housebreakings.

§ 14‑51. First and second degree burglary.

There shall be two degrees in the crime of burglary as defined at the common law. If the crime be committed in a dwelling house, or in a room used as a sleeping apartment in any building, and any person is in the actual occupation of any part of said dwelling house or sleeping apartment at the time of the commission of such crime, it shall be burglary in the first degree. If such crime be committed in a dwelling house or sleeping apartment not actually occupied by anyone at the time of the commission of the crime, or if it be committed in any house within the curtilage of a dwelling house or in any building not a dwelling house, but in which is a room used as a sleeping apartment and not actually occupied as such at the time of the commission of the crime, it shall be burglary in the second degree. For the purposes of defining the crime of burglary, larceny shall be deemed a felony without regard to the value of the property in question. (1889, c. 434, s. 1; Rev., s. 3331; C.S., s. 4232; 1969, c. 543, s. 1.)

Now while I will say that the father is right, and that no one was hurt, no where does it state in the article that no one was at home. Given the punnishment, it indicates that the building was occupied during the crime. Burglary in the first degree, a class D felony, punnishable by fines and/or 40 years, per count.

You are confusing me here. Why have these prison sentences except to stop crime, either by rehabilitation or by fear of punishment?

I see comprehension escapes you. I was referring to the fact that if it is 25 years per b&e, that equals 100 years. Now add on top of that 15 years for burglary, assuming he stole something per house, that is an additional 60 years. Therefor, 100 (B&E) + 6o(Burglary) = 160years. That does not include however long he has left on his Arson charge.

Finally Found it!

Here (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0014)

let's deconstruct the sentencing. 40 years per count.

this chart shows that it was a class D felony that he was charged with. (http://www.ncsu.edu/police/Information/NCLaw.html)

Here B&E is defined, at worse, a Class H felony, (http://http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-54.html) assuming that it was homes and not religious places of worship (yes, B&E of any Religious building is worse. (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-54.1.html))



Now Class H is 10 years, Class G is 15 years... Derek recieved 40 years per count, a Class D Felony. thus it wasn't B&E but Burglary (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-52.html).


note, Burglary in the FIRST DEGREE is a class D Felony... 40 years.
now what's the difference between First and Second?

SUBCHAPTER IV. OFFENSES AGAINST THE HABITATION AND OTHER BUILDINGS. (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.html)



Now while I will say that the father is right, and that no one was hurt, no where does it state in the article that no one was at home. Given the punnishment, it indicates that the building was occupied during the crime. Burglary in the first degree, a class D felony, punnishable by fines and/or 40 years, per count.

I hand JuNii this gold star for an outstanding post and this trophy for winning the thread.

*also hands over cookies to JuNii too*

So you do claim that these sentences work?


100+ years will work flawlessly for an individual who has proven that he can't stay out of trouble.;)

I see comprehension escapes you. I was referring to the fact that if it is 25 years per b&e, that equals 100 years. Now add on top of that 15 years for burglary, assuming he stole something per house, that is an additional 60 years. Therefor, 100 (B&E) + 6o(Burglary) = 160years. That does not include however long he has left on his Arson charge.

Oh no, I understood that. I then moved on to asking whether you thimk these sentences work.

Oh no, I understood that. I then moved on to asking whether you thimk these sentences work.

I don't care if they work or not. I want criminals off the street and the longer the better.

Ad Hominem and Ad Absurdum.



Ad Numeram, Ad Populum, and Ad Absurdum.

Dismissed until further notice.

I assume you are applying the same standards to the poster I was responding to? Or does the fact he agrees with you get him a free pass from having his posts carefully checked for fallacies? ;)

I don't care if they work or not. I want criminals off the street and the longer the better.

So you are in favour of ineffective and expensive government schemes that don't work? Who'd have thought it, You are a socialist in disguise.

I don't care if they work or not. I want criminals off the street and the longer the better.

Very christian of you....

I assume you are applying the same standards to the poster I was responding to? Or does the fact he agrees with you get him a free pass from having his posts carefully checked for fallacies? ;)

how was my post about caning, in reguards that another poster assumed that this was the other extreme of Irelands laws an Ad Hominem attack.

The post I was responding to was this.
In Ireland, it is uncommon for a even a person who commits homicide (murder or aggravated manslaughter) to get more than twenty five years without parole. Irish justice is a joke. I wish we could have a system more like the one in the US.

There are countries out there that at that time had caning as a punishment to vandalism and theft (Singapore). a punishment that some would say is worse than imprisonment.

Finally Found it!

Here (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0014)

let's deconstruct the sentencing. 40 years per count.

this chart shows that it was a class D felony that he was charged with. (http://www.ncsu.edu/police/Information/NCLaw.html)

Here B&E is defined, at worse, a Class H felony, (http://http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-54.html) assuming that it was homes and not religious places of worship (yes, B&E of any Religious building is worse. (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-54.1.html))



Now Class H is 10 years, Class G is 15 years... Derek recieved 40 years per count, a Class D Felony. thus it wasn't B&E but Burglary (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-52.html).


note, Burglary in the FIRST DEGREE is a class D Felony... 40 years.
now what's the difference between First and Second?

SUBCHAPTER IV. OFFENSES AGAINST THE HABITATION AND OTHER BUILDINGS. (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.html)



Now while I will say that the father is right, and that no one was hurt, no where does it state in the article that no one was at home. Given the punnishment, it indicates that the building was occupied during the crime. Burglary in the first degree, a class D felony, punnishable by fines and/or 40 years, per count.

Ah, thank you. I was right in smelling a rat.
I'll add that I did misread the cart in the article I posted above. 150 months (12 years) is the average maximum for a class D felony. I will now officially call BS and again ask for another source for this story.

Finally Found it!

*snips for brevity*



Still, the punishment doesn't suit the crime - especially insofar as the sentences run consecutively.

I assume you are applying the same standards to the poster I was responding to? Or does the fact he agrees with you get him a free pass from having his posts carefully checked for fallacies? ;)

then attack my fallicies and not just make off hand comments and NOT expect them to be commented on.

I assume you are applying the same standards to the poster I was responding to? Or does the fact he agrees with you get him a free pass from having his posts carefully checked for fallacies? ;)

Not actually checking anyone's posts that carefully, yours just caught my eye. Feel free to point out where he or anyone else (including me) has engaged in logical fallacies, if any, when spotted.

Ah, thank you. I was right in smelling a rat.
I'll add that I did misread the cart in the article I posted above. 150 months (12 years) is the average maximum for a class D felony. I will now officially call BS and again ask for another source for this story.

Ask all you want - all's I got is what I saw on the front page of the Sun yesterday, and the online version of said article - I'm not about to be held responsible for inequities in mass-media distribution or news coverage.

I don't usually see you taking DCD to task over his one-source news article threads, so why do you (and AC2, and others) take umbrage with me when I post an item of (possibly contentious) interest? Hmm?

how was my post about caning, in reguards that another poster assumed that this was the other extreme of Irelands laws an Ad Hominem attack.

The post I was responding to was this.


There are countries out there that at that time had caning as a punishment to vandalism and theft (Singapore). a punishment that some would say is worse than imprisonment.

then attack my fallicies and not just make off hand comments and NOT expect them to be commented on.

Two responses to the same post.

The post was written to be commented on, hopefully by you so I could pick yours apart in response.

Having just smugly gone back in order to do this I realise I totally misread what you said initially and I haven't a leg to stand on.

Sorry, my mistake.

Very christian of you....

What? That I want to see criminals punished? And since when does my being a christian factor into this? We are taught to follow the law. He broke the law and got punished for it.

Still, the punishment doesn't suit the crime - especially insofar as the sentences run consecutively.

except there is ALOT that is not said in the article. unfortunatly to look up his criminal record would amount to spending money (that I don't have. :p )

IF his only criminal history was the B&E and nothing else, then I would agree. but the article did state he was on parole for Arson, anothe felony and the fathers comments does indicate that he did have a history of breaking the law (granted they might've been misdemeanors and not felonies.)

The Judge had access to all that info and thus made the call according to the letter of the law. Now realize that he did break parole, more time should be added on because he broke his agreement of parole to end his jail time for arson... it wasn't (if the 40 years per count + Restitution was the total of his punishment.)

Granted this may be because the 4 counts occured before the Arson, and if he was a minor at the time of committing the crimes, that would explain why the Parents were sued. Since I doubt they would be held liable if the Burglaries were committed after he turned 18.

and again, the rest of his gang probably copped a bargin and left him to hang for all we know.

Still, the punishment doesn't suit the crime - especially insofar as the sentences run consecutively.

Welcome to the Judiciary process where you can have consecutive sentences. Hell,we have been known to sentence people to consectutive life terms for murder 1.

Two responses to the same post.

The post was written to be commented on, hopefully by you so I could pick yours apart in response.

Having just smugly gone back in order to do this I realise I totally misread what you said initially and I haven't a leg to stand on.

Sorry, my mistake.
no problem, I do that alot myself.
Case in point... me replying twice to the same post. :D

*hand over freshly baked cookie*

What? That I want to see criminals punished? And since when does my being a christian factor into this? We are taught to follow the law. He broke the law and got punished for it.

Christ also taught compassion. One of the sacraments is to visit the incarcerated and infirm.

Being a Christian factors into this because, as a Christian, you're supposed to act like one and espouse Christian ideals. Compassion and forgiveness is one of them, and wishing longer jail time on people isn't very compassionate.

160 years is far too long for a crime of that nature. Now, as other posters have shown through their research, there is more to this than meets the eye. Very likely, circumstances that did not make the paper probably contributed to the long prison sentence.

I don't usually see you taking DCD to task over his one-source news article threads, so why do you (and AC2, and others) take umbrage with me when I post an item of (possibly contentious) interest? Hmm?

Because of lack of facts in the story on why he was sentenced to 4 consecutive 40 year sentences.

Welcome to the Judiciary process where you can have consecutive sentences. Hell,we have been known to sentence people to consectutive life terms for murder 1.

That something is doesn't make it just.

haha, that reminds me. heres another story for you. did you know that in the US you can get a life sentence for smashing a mail box, but you'll only get a few decades for killing a child? how ridiculous is that?!

Ask all you want - all's I got is what I saw on the front page of the Sun yesterday, and the online version of said article - I'm not about to be held responsible for inequities in mass-media distribution or news coverage.

I don't usually see you taking DCD to task over his one-source news article threads, so why do you (and AC2, and others) take umbrage with me when I post an item of (possibly contentious) interest? Hmm?

... sorry. I don't hold you (or any poster for that matter) accountable for what the media reports. I apologize if I came across like I was.

haha, that reminds me. heres another story for you. did you know that in the US you can get a life sentence for smashing a mail box, but you'll only get a few decades for killing a child? how ridiculous is that?!

Source?

Christ also taught compassion. One of the sacraments is to visit the incarcerated and infirm.

Visit the incarceration is different than breaking the law. If someone breaks the law, they deserve to be punished. I do have compassion but I will not go against the law. Besides, this has nothing to do with compassion but law breaking.

160 years is far too long for a crime of that nature.

C-R-I-M-E-S. He broke into four houses and stole items from them. That's more than one crime. He was sentenced per count. Hence the long jail term. Please try to understand that.

Now, as other posters have shown through their research, there is more to this than meets the eye. Very likely, circumstances that did not make the paper probably contributed to the long prison sentence.

Yep.

That something is doesn't make it just.

Welcome to the world of Law.

haha, that reminds me. heres another story for you. did you know that in the US you can get a life sentence for smashing a mail box, but you'll only get a few decades for killing a child? how ridiculous is that?!

Proof?

Welcome to the world of Law.

If you knew what degree I'm currently studying then you'd understand why I find that comment so funny.

Edit; Do you think that all laws are just simply because they are law or do you judge them according to your own moral code? This is the question I'm trying to get you to answer.

Visit the incarceration is different than breaking the law. If someone breaks the law, they deserve to be punished. I do have compassion but I will not go against the law. Besides, this has nothing to do with compassion but law breaking.



C-R-I-M-E-S. He broke into four houses and stole items from them. That's more than one crime. He was sentenced per count. Hence the long jail term. Please try to understand that.



Yep.

Those are all very good points that I failed to make, I know he went on a string of crimes and also broke his parole (which he was on from another very serious crime). I would be interested to see what his friends served.

I agree that that thinking a criminal ought to be punished is not against compassion per se, but I would think Christ would more be in favor of rehabilitation than prison...course, I also imagine Christ would be fine in this particular case, the kid is a multiple offender.

Visit the incarceration is different than breaking the law. If someone breaks the law, they deserve to be punished. I do have compassion but I will not go against the law. Besides, this has nothing to do with compassion but law breaking.



C-R-I-M-E-S. He broke into four houses and stole items from them. That's more than one crime. He was sentenced per count. Hence the long jail term. Please try to understand that.



Yep.

The point that you've been making backflips in order to miss throughout this thread is: Why lay on the excessive penalty of 40 damn years for B&E, when murder is only 25 to life, and why make him serve the sentences CONSECUTIVELY instead of congruently as is the norm?

That something is doesn't make it just.
when you factor in the parole process... it does.

unless stated "W/o parole", everyone gets a chance for parole. even Life sentences. I can't remember the formula, but for some it's a fraction of the time or 12 (or somesuch) years if ambigous like LIFE.

so a sentence of 3 consecutive LIFE sentences would have him elegeble for Parole in 12x3 or 36 years.

so sometimes you hear some movie where the defendant is sentenced to something like 8 consecutive 99 year sentences... that means you take the stated fraction (I think it was something like a third of the sentence... I gotta find that formula...) and multiply it by the number of consecutive sentences and you get the first date of when elegbility for parole is due.

it's used for crimes of such horror that normally one would be put to Death, but because some states don't have the DP...

The point that you've been making backflips in order to miss throughout this thread is: Why lay on the excessive penalty of 40 damn years for B&E, when murder is only 25 to life, and why make him serve the sentences CONSECUTIVELY instead of congruently as is the norm?

because it wasn't B&E.

when you factor in the parole process... it does.

unless stated "W/o parole", everyone gets a chance for parole. even Life sentences. I can't remember the formula, but for some it's a fraction of the time or 12 (or somesuch) years if ambigous like LIFE.

so a sentence of 3 consecutive LIFE sentences would have him elegeble for Parole in 12x3 or 36 years.

so sometimes you hear some movie where the defendant is sentenced to something like 8 consecutive 99 year sentences... that means you take the stated fraction (I think it was something like a third of the sentence... I gotta find that formula...) and multiply it by the number of consecutive sentences and you get the first date of when elegbility for parole is due.

it's used for crimes of such horror that normally one would be put to Death, but because some states don't have the DP...

That isn't what I'm saying. AC2 seems to be making the argument that because this is the law then it is just and I'm trying to work out whether he believes that all laws are inherently just simply by virtue of being law.

In this particular case I believe the sentence is far too long, it may fit with the law of the state but I believe that law to be unjust.

That isn't what I'm saying. AC2 seems to be making the argument that because this is the law then it is just and I'm trying to work out whether he believes that all laws are inherently just simply by virtue of being law.

I am reminded of a bible verse that talks about obeying the government.

In this particular case I believe the sentence is far too long, it may fit with the law of the state but I believe that law to be unjust.

Then come over here and try to get it overturned.

That isn't what I'm saying. AC2 seems to be making the argument that because this is the law then it is just and I'm trying to work out whether he believes that all laws are inherently just simply by virtue of being law.

In this particular case I believe the sentence is far too long, it may fit with the law of the state but I believe that law to be unjust.
oh... then I shall let AC2 answer that since you're asking for opinions.

but then, my post will explain it to those who question how it works legally. ;)

I am reminded of a bible verse that talks about obeying the government.



Then come over here and try to get it overturned.

Are you referring to the verse that says (phrased like I know what I'm talking about, but vaguely wrong) "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"?

Because, sure, that's about following the laws of the country, but you should know that if something is unjust we're not just supposed to follow it blindly. I understand you think that this law is not unjust in this case, but surely you would protest against a law you thought was unjust? Otherwise you're just being a sheep, and God doesn't want sheep.

oh... then I shall let AC2 answer that since you're asking for opinions.

but then, my post will explain it to those who question how it works legally. ;)

Quite well explained, too! Thanks! :D

I am reminded of a bible verse that talks about obeying the government.



Then come over here and try to get it overturned.

What verse?

Otherwise you're just being a sheep, and God doesn't want sheep.

I thought he did.

'The Lord is my shepherd' and all that ;)

I thought he did.

'The Lord is my shepherd' and all that ;)

Oh, this punnagement is too much for the crime!

Because of lack of facts in the story on why he was sentenced to 4 consecutive 40 year sentences.

So you do hold me somehow responsible for the failure of media outlets to report on the story, then. Talk about shooting the messenger.

Are you referring to the verse that says (phrased like I know what I'm talking about, but vaguely wrong) "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"?

No! That verse deals with Taxes.

No! That verse deals with Taxes.

Right, my mistake.

So which verse are you referring to?

I thought he did.

'The Lord is my shepherd' and all that ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57o0BZWkwlA

because it wasn't B&E.

Parole violations don't warrant 160 years incarceration with no chance for parole. I really don't understand your justification of what can only be described (at best) as a miscarriage of Justice.

Right, my mistake.

So which verse are you referring to?

Romans 13:1-5

I think what people are forgetting is that while 40 years is the written penalty, the judge can adjust it as circumstances fit.

perhaps there were no circumstances to warrant a lessening of the sentence. perhaps the rest of his gang all pleaded guilty and fingered him as the ringleader, he got the harshest penalty.

because no one was hurt, doesn't mean no one was threatened... tied up, blindfolded, threatened, but left unharmed...

but to look at the stated crime (B&E) and the punishment (40 yrs per count consecuatively) and say "that's not fair" without sitting through the trial is also unjust.

God doesn't want sheep.

Now there's monotheistic Wisdom if I've ever heard it. Thanks, Bookie.

Parole violations don't warrant 160 years incarceration with no chance for parole. I really don't understand your justification of what can only be described (at best) as a miscarriage of Justice.

I guess Dobby here did not read his post about what precisely he was charged and convicted of. If he did, he would have fully understanding why he got four 40yr sentences to be runned consecutively.

I guess Dobby here did not read his post about what precisely he was charged and convicted of. If he did, he would have fully understanding why he got four 40yr sentences to be runned consecutively.

You guess wrong. Unsurprisingly.

You guess wrong. Unsurprisingly.

Wrong about you actually reading why he got his 40 year term? Wrong about you actually reading what JuNii posted and what he was charged with which resulted in the 40 year term? Or wrong about you understanding what is said?

You being a Canadian, I do not expect you to understand the American Judiciary system. Heck, I barely understand it and I live here.

Romans 13:1-5

My Bible is very helpful because of all the sidenotes they've added. According to mine, you are correct, we as Christians are told to obey the laws of our land. However, that is tempered by the realization that the governing body is able to make laws, and if it makes unjust laws, they are subject to God's judgment.

Check out Wisdom Chapter 6.

Now there's monotheistic Wisdom if I've ever heard it. Thanks, Bookie.

You're welcome! I do my best to be a good Christian, and in my mind that means trying to be smart, open-minded, and friendly. Trying to be smart entails thinking for myself. :D

My Bible is very helpful because of all the sidenotes they've added. According to mine, you are correct, we as Christians are told to obey the laws of our land. However, that is tempered by the realization that the governing body is able to make laws, and if it makes unjust laws, they are subject to God's judgment.

Check out Wisdom Chapter 6.

But who decides what law is bad and what law is good?

Indeed but who decides what law is bad and what law is good?

That's a function of our moral conscience. To me, it seems like 160 years is way too long for the crimes as listed. However, since I don't know the full extent of the court case, I remain dubious as to whether or not I'm right. There's obvious spin on this article.

Parole violations don't warrant 160 years incarceration with no chance for parole. I really don't understand your justification of what can only be described (at best) as a miscarriage of Justice.

you keep saying that the 160 years is only for his Parole Violation, or only for the B&E.

check my previous posts that show NC's laws.

In North Carolina, Burglary in the first degree carries a sentence of 40 years. $71,000 was taken making it Burglary, not B&E. a mistake (at best) on the paper's part.

if there were people in the home at the time of the burglary, that makes it Burglary in the First degree.

so this isn't just about Parole Violation, it's not about B&E, but it's a combination of things including a history of felonies (even if Arson is the only one mentioned, it doesn't mean that it's the only other crime [including misdemeanors] he did) and multiple counts of Burglary.

and when his elegibility for Parole comes around, he'll have his chance... again (referring to his Arson Parole)

you keep saying that the 160 years is only for his Parole Violation, or only for the B&E.

check my previous posts that show NC's laws.

In North Carolina, Burglary in the first degree carries a sentence of 40 years. $71,000 was taken making it Burglary, not B&E. a mistake (at best) on the paper's part.

if there were people in the home at the time of the burglary, that makes it Burglary in the First degree.

so this isn't just about Parole Violation, it's not about B&E, but it's a combination of things including a history of felonies (even if Arson is the only one mentioned, it doesn't mean that it's the only other crime [including misdemeanors] he did) and multiple counts of Burglary.

and when his elegibility for Parole comes around, he'll have his chance... again (referring to his Arson Parole)


Burglary, to whatever degree, does not warrant 160 years of incarceration without parole, either.

Burglary, to whatever degree, does not warrant 160 years of incarceration without parole, either.

where does it state "without parole"?

and it's not 160 years, it's 40 years per count. which can indicate that each count was tried seperately and judged seperately.

where does it state "without parole"?

and it's not 160 years, it's 40 years per count. which can indicate that each count was tried seperately and judged seperately.

Psst: Dobby does not understand. He is only looking at the total time and not each seperate case as you must do in a situation like this.

Psst: Dobby does not understand. He is only looking at the total time and not each seperate case as you must do in a situation like this.

Don't presume to speak on my behalf again, AC2. You don't have a bead on my thoughts, you never have, and probably never will - so just drop it, right now.

Nothing. :p

Just responding to other posts that say that murderers get less time in prison than this person got.

Well, considering that in some cases, one is eligible for parole long before this guy will be, meh.

Murder 2 nets you nowhere near that. Rape even, depending on circumstance, nets anywhere from only a couple years, to 20, getting out early depending on parole.

So... Rape is less of a crime than B&E. Gotchya. Granted it was multiple counts, but still even one count of this will net him a much greater sentence.

Don't presume to speak on my behalf again, AC2. You don't have a bead on my thoughts, you never have, and probably never will - so just drop it, right now.

Not my fault that you are not seeing the fact that it is four, 40 Year terms to be runned consecutively. Hence the 160 year number.

So are you objecting to the 40 years for Class D conviction is to harsh?

Not my fault that you are not seeing the fact that it is four, 40 Year terms to be runned consecutively. Hence the 160 year number.

So are you objecting to the 40 years for Class D conviction is to harsh?

The fact that it is four, 40-year terms to run consecutively - hence the 160 year number - is the very nub of the issue, and my deep abiding sensibility - namely, that the punishment meted out is completely and utterly disproportionate to the nature of the crime - disproportionate to the extent that it could only reasonably be described as being injust.

Or are you simply too blinkered, too unswervingly authoritarian in temperament to understand that this is wrong to the point of incredulity, AC2?

Ask all you want - all's I got is what I saw on the front page of the Sun yesterday, and the online version of said article - I'm not about to be held responsible for inequities in mass-media distribution or news coverage.

So, since the article has been busted, and you have no other source, I would expect you'd give it up.

I don't usually see you taking DCD

Nice try at sidestepping the issue via appeal to common practice. Sorry it won't work.

to task over his one-source news article threads,

The issue isn't one of a single source, but one of a single bad source.

so why do you (and AC2, and others) take umbrage with me when I post an item of (possibly contentious) interest? Hmm?

I can't speak for the others, but I haven't taken umbrage. I simply saw an article that I suspected was factually incorrect and has turned out to be.

The article makes the argument that pity should be taken on the subject because the punishment was overly harsh. The facts of the case were not stated completely, concealing important aspects of why the sentence was so long. If the facts had indeed been as written in the article, I might disagree with the others. As it is, I have less sympathy.

The fact that it is four, 40-year terms to run consecutively - hence the 160 year number - is the very nub of the issue, and my deep abiding sensibility - namely, that the punishment meted out is completely and utterly disproportionate to the nature of the crime - disproportionate to the extent that it could only reasonably be described as being injust.

That's the way it works. Commit a crime and do the time even if it is a consecutive term. It is how the Judiciary system works. You do multiple crimes like this, you run consecutive jail terms. Period.

Or are you simply too blinkered, too unswervingly authoritarian in temperament to understand that this is wrong to the point of incredulity, AC2?

First time I ever got accused of being authoritarian considering I'm a moderate.

Thank God that murder 1 is life in prison here in the US. Now I know why I love the three strikes and your out rule.
Is it true that they'll put you in jail for life if you're caught shoplifting three times in America?

He did the crimes, he should do the time.

Screw the fuck, he deserves every minute of it.
So you think it's OK that this guy gets more prison time than probably 90% of rapists and murderers?

What can we say? This is the United States, home of the Zero Tolerance Policy in schools. Where carrying a nail clipper can get you expelled for carrying a weapon and stealing ice cream can get you double digit prison sentence, even as a first-time kid.
As my signature surely proves!

That's the way it works.
That's not an argument.

First time I ever got accused of being authoritarian considering I'm a moderate.
It's not the first time people have questioned your claims of being moderate.

I am reminded of a bible verse that talks about obeying the government.

There is no such Bible verse. There is one, however, about submitting to the government.

Is it true that they'll put you in jail for life if you're caught shoplifting three times in America?

Depends on the state.

It's not the first time people have questioned your claims of being moderate.

That's because no one knows me personally.

That's the way it works. Commit a crime and do the time even if it is a consecutive term. It is how the Judiciary system works. You do multiple crimes like this, you run consecutive jail terms. Period.



First time I ever got accused of being authoritarian considering I'm a moderate.

You do come off as rather authoritarian with respect to obeying the government because the Bible said to.

There is no such Bible verse. There is one, however, about submitting to the government.

He's referring to a verse allright, he pointed it out earlier. And it does say that, because people are in charge they are by extension God's rulers and laws. HOWEVER that is tempered by earlier verses saying that the laws should be just, and unjust rulers are subject to wrath and judgment.

But who decides what law is bad and what law is good?

So you will follow any law without considering it first?

How about a law banning the practise of christianity?

How about a law banning the practise of christianity?

That would violate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

I understand you think that this law is not unjust in this case, but surely you would protest against a law you thought was unjust?
I agree. Christians should protest against unjust laws, but only peacefully.

Depends on the state.
It's ridiculous that it happens anywhere.

That's because no one knows me personally.
We don't need to. We are familiar with your political views.

That would violate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
Irrelevant. The constitution is not equivalent to the Bible. And what about Christians in countries without such a command in its constitution?

He's referring to a verse allright, he pointed it out earlier. And it does say that, because people are in charge they are by extension God's rulers and laws.
My point is that it says, submit and not 'obey'. I think that passive resistance to an evil government is the right way, as directed by this passage. One of the 20th century's famous practitioners of this, Gandhi, was inspired by Jesus Christ. (although he was not a Christian)

How about a law banning the practise of christianity?
That could be considered a test from God.

He's referring to a verse allright, he pointed it out earlier. And it does say that, because people are in charge they are by extension God's rulers and laws. HOWEVER that is tempered by earlier verses saying that the laws should be just, and unjust rulers are subject to wrath and judgment.

That could explain Saddam Hussein :D

That would violate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Don't dodge the question. The constitution can and has been changed.

Assuming the relevent changes had been made to the constitution, would you follow a law banning the practice of christianity?

I agree. Christians should protest against unjust laws, but only peacefully.

Agreed.

It's ridiculous that it happens anywhere.

There's been attempts to do away with it but none have fully succeeded.

We don't need to. We are familiar with your political views.

Only the views I have stated here. However, you do not know me personally so to say that I am not a moderate is incorrect since one does not know me personally. This is the internet TPW.

Don't dodge the question. The constitution can and has been changed.

Your right that it has been changed but what you are suggesting is not going to happen as there will be massive outcry as it prevents religion from entering into politics. Take out the protective clause and all hell will break loose.

Assuming the relevent changes had been made to the constitution, would you follow a law banning the practice of christianity?

I'd protest the law and still practice it. I'd go to my death willingly if that is the punishment.