NationStates Jolt Archive

Lottery winner wasn't supposed to gamble http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/odd_robber_lottery_winner;_ylt=AqQVn4IE8NJochW9jicSiXsE1vAI


Does he get to keep the money? I "bet" yes.


And if your in the mood to double down, bets on if hes going to get rid of that horrible beard!

i think he should get to keep the money but go to jail for violating his probation agreement.

Lottery winner wasn't supposed to gamble http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/odd_robber_lottery_winner;_ylt=AqQVn4IE8NJochW9jicSiXsE1vAI


Does he get to keep the money? I "bet" yes.


And if your in the mood to double down, bets on if hes going to get rid of that horrible beard!
... parole violation and probably either a forfeit of the winnings or a very heavy fine.

and he'll keep the beard... after all, he grew it to that length...

EDIT: actually it depends. if his state has a law stating that a criminal cannot profit from his criminal act, then he won't beable to keep the winnings because buying the ticket violated the terms of his parole.

and he'll keep the beard... after all, he grew it to that length...


Maybe the beard was part of his bank robber disguise? Police: Could you descibe the Bank robber maam? Well he looked like Santa after a 6 week crack binge is all i can tell you..

EDIT: actually it depends. if his state has a law stating that a criminal cannot profit from his criminal act, then he won't beable to keep the winnings because buying the ticket violated the terms of his parole.

...buh?

Um, no? Buying a lottery ticket is a not a criminal act. Likewise his winning of the lottery was not related to his actual criminal actions. Yes, a criminal can not profit from his illegal activities. But there is nothing illegal about buying a lottery ticket.

He will probably keep the money, and return to jail.

...buh?

Um, no? Buying a lottery ticket is a not a criminal act. Likewise his winning of the lottery was not related to his actual criminal actions. Yes, a criminal can not profit from his illegal activities. But there is nothing illegal about buying a lottery ticket.

He will probably keep the money, and return to jail.

Elliott was placed on five years' probation after pleading guilty in October 2006 to unarmed robbery for a January 2006 heist at a bank on Cape Cod. Under terms of his probation, he "may not gamble, purchase lottery tickets or visit an establishment where gaming is conducted, including restaurants where Keno may be played."

What are the limits of the law in terms of setting probation terms?

EDIT: My above question is rather irrelevant I think - it's more, is breaking probation the illegal act here, for which he will go to jail or, by breaking the specific term, is he not entitled to the money either?

What are the limits of the law in terms of setting probation terms?

I'm aware of the terms of his probation, and he did violate them. So for that he has the chance of returning to jail. That, however, has nothing to do with the fact that his actions in buying a lottery ticket were not criminal, and as such, the state likely has no power to confiscate his winnings. He did not commit a crime. He legally purchased a lottery ticket and won.

Now, purchasing that lottery ticket did violate the terms of his probation, and for that he can be returned to prison, but I don't think the state has the power to take his property, lawfully acquired.

As to what the limits are, I'm not sure, fairly broad, given that there is no right to probation, and of course, if the terms are unacceptable to him, he is free to refuse them. That being said, I would think that they would have to be relevant to his crimes and proportionate to them.

However that doesn't change the fact that he perfectly legally bought the lottery ticket. It is not a crime to violate terms of probation.

I'm aware of the terms of his probation, and he did violate them. So for that he has the chance of returning to jail. That, however, has nothing to do with the fact that his actions in buying a lottery ticket were not criminal, and as such, the state likely has no power to confiscate his winnings. He did not commit a crime. He legally purchased a lottery ticket and won.

Now, purchasing that lottery ticket did violate the terms of his probation, and for that he can be returned to prison, but I don't think the state has the power to take his property, lawfully acquired.

As to what the limits are, I'm not sure, fairly broad, given that there is no right to probation, and of course, if the terms are unacceptable to him, he is free to refuse them. That being said, I would think that they would have to be relevant to his crimes and proportionate to them.

However that doesn't change the fact that he perfectly legally bought the lottery ticket. It is not a crime to violate terms of probation.

Got it - interesting technicality on his part but I agree that, since he broke the probation agreement, he goes to jail but keeps the money.

EDIT: My above question is rather irrelevant I think - it's more, is breaking probation the illegal act here, for which he will go to jail or, by breaking the specific term, is he not entitled to the money either?

Neither. Breaking terms of probation is not an illegal act (of course, committing an illegal act is often a violation of probation, but you do not commit a crime merely by violationg probation). Likewise, beccause he legally purchased the lottery ticket, and legally won, I can see no reason why he would not be entitled to his winnings.

Heh. Funny, but also sad. Looks like the guy's some kind of compulsive gambler, hence the mental ward and probation rather than prison for the guy. He must've convinced someone he was robbing that bank to pay gambling debts, or something. But, even gambling nuts get breaks sometimes, so good for him.

Let me explain a bit further. As I said, violationg probation/parole is not a crime. Probation/parole is a privlidge granted by the state to lessen your term of imprisonment.

Let's say I get drunk one night and assault someone. I am then convicted of assault and sentenced to one year in jail. After six months, I am given parole, I am released from prison, but given conditions of that parole. Those conditions are I can not drink alchohol, and can not assault anyone. If I do, my parole is revoked.

Now let's say, after I get out, I get drunk. By drinking alchohol I have violated my terms of parole. Now, I have not committed any crime. I'm an adult over the age of 21, I have the right to drink alchohol, this is no crime. However, I have violated the terms of my parole. I can not be charged with committing a crime, I did not commit any, but I can be sent back to jail, not for any new crime I have committed, but to serve the remaining six months of the sentence on my previous crime. Drinking was no crime, and I can not be given any additional sentence for it. I can however be required to finish my original sentence, as I have violated my parole conditions.

As in this case, he violated his terms of probation. He committed no crime, and legally purchased a lottery ticket. He can not be charged with any crime, and as such, lawfully won that money. But he did violate his terms of probation, and can be sent to jail, not for any new crime, but for the remaining sentence on his old crime.

Heh. Funny, but also sad. Looks like the guy's some kind of compulsive gambler, hence the mental ward and probation rather than prison for the guy. He must've convinced someone he was robbing that bank to pay gambling debts, or something. But, even gambling nuts get breaks sometimes, so good for him.

I'm wondering how much it costs a year to keep someone in prison and, in the case of robbery, a better solution is to provide say, 65% of that cost in weekly payouts to the robber rather than put them in jail.

If the purpose is to get money, why not give it to them and thus remove the purpose over putting them in costly prison, albeit with prison for recidivists.

That is, if the aim is rehabilitation over punishment.

Certainly not a 100% solution but I wonder if it could be applied in many cases.

Seems it's an actual debate (http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/prisonValue.php), and I'm on the wrong side :p

EDIT: Here's another article (http://www.datelinecarolina.org/Global/story.asp?S=6430630&nav=1VPx) - scratch my original thought but I'm still thinking there's better ways than prison to rehabilitate some people

I'm wondering how much it costs a year to keep someone in prison and, in the case of robbery, a better solution is to provide say, 65% of that cost in weekly payouts to the robber rather than put them in jail.

If the purpose is to get money, why not give it to them and thus remove the purpose over putting them in costly prison, albeit with prison for recidivists.

That is, if the aim is rehabilitation over punishment.

Certainly not a 100% solution but I wonder if it could be applied in many cases.

Seems it's an actual debate (http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/prisonValue.php), and I'm on the wrong side :p


EDIT: Here's another article (http://www.datelinecarolina.org/Global/story.asp?S=6430630&nav=1VPx) - scratch my original thought but I'm still thinking there's better ways than prison to rehabilitate people

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. First of all, the aim is punishment, not rehabilitation (officially, in California, maybe only unofficially elsewhere). Second, it seems a bit like a reward for criminal acts. Although it would be kinda funny.

Let me explain a bit further. As I said, violationg probation/parole is not a crime. Probation/parole is a privlidge granted by the state to lessen your term of imprisonment.


The one thing I kinda like about California: parole violations are treated as separate, new offenses, and result in loss of conduct days, which means you must serve the 1/3 of your sentence that was taken away for good behavior previously. Not a bad scheme, although the system as a whole is more than a bit corrupt.