How could he have been denied parole so many times?!? Was the parole board a bunch of TV salesmen or something?
Meanwhile every celebrity busted with drugs or for assualt gets off with probation.
I need to get famouus so I can be exempt from society's petty laws.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Well it doesn't sound like Mr. Allen was an angel exactly. Clearly life in prison for a 19 inch B&W TV is excessive, but it's very possible he didn't make a very positive impression on his parole board.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
If they changed the sentencing rules for this kind of crime you would imagine that it would be RETROACTIVE.
Again, HUH???
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Retroactive laws are prohibited at the state and federal level by the US Constitution, so that's why his sentence wasn't reconsidered when the punishment part of the law was changed. Still, you'd think the parole board would have the common sense that the theft of a $140 black and white television set is in no way deserving of a life sentence. I don't think it matters whether or not he did have a criminal history or not or whether he roughed up the owner or not. He was tried for stealing a TV set, not for his criminal record and not for assault. What really gets me, though, is that the article implies that no one jumped in to help the guy until this law professor did so. Did no one else no anything about his case? Did his family not try to get any help for him?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye that stolen TV was all the family he ever had...
Untill he became someone's girlfriend in prison, that is.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Retroactive laws are prohibited at the state and federal level by the US Constitution..."
Federal, yes, but I can't see how it could be construed to affect state laws. However, I suspect most state constitutions would contain the same proviso.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
His state governor(s) could have pardoned him at any time you know.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Tim: The US Constitution specifically says that the states cannot make ex post facto laws; the relevant text is in Article I, Section 10.
I haven't done a search on every state constitution, but Texas (Article I, Section 16), North Carolina (Article I, Section 16), and Missouri (Article I, Section 13) all specifically outlaw ex post facto laws as well.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I listened to an interview with Mr. Allen's lawyer and I managed to glean these few points: - The Defendant was black and that the home in which the TV set was stolen was owned by an old white woman. According to the attourney, Mr. Allen never had contact with the white woman, nor was there any evidence to suggest that he did. The attourney does not know if this factored into the decision to hand down a life sentence. - The Defendant's previous offenses were quite minor, nothing that would warrant such a life sentence. - Much of the paperwork involving Mr. Allen's incarceration has since dissappeared, including rationales for the sentencing and subsequent parole hearings. - His parole "hearings" were simply nothing more than a simple paper application that is then handled by a desk clerk. - Four years ago, a state prosecutor happened to come across Mr. Allen's file while looking at an unrelated motion. Of course he was aghast of what he saw and contacted the man who would then be Mr. Allen's attourney. - From what I know, all work done by this attourney was clearly pro bono. Mr. Allen's family does not have the financial resources to get a court to overturn the sentence. - Almost all of the fellow prisoners and prison guards felt that Mr. Allen was a friendly man and deserved to be let out early. Unfortunately, this did not affect the outcomes of his parole applications. - When the State prosecutor and the attourney made the request to the parole board to release Mr. Allen, they were given a response that releasing him would "undermine the seriousness of the charge". - When the interviewer asked why this happened, the attourney says that he believes Mr. Allen "fell through the cracks". Despite this, a civil suit is not likely because the conviction, as well as the parole rejections and his incarceration for 35 years was all legal.
[ May 30, 2005, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Saltah'na ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Tim: The US Constitution specifically says that the states cannot make ex post facto laws; the relevant text is in Article I, Section 10."
Ah, so it is.
Interestingly, the same paragraph says that they can't use paper money. It also happens to contain the bit that says they have to respect each other's contracts, which they also ignore (with far less good reason).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'm outraged that a stone-cold TV thief could be released from his just and fair punishment after two bleeding heard liberals undermined our judicial system.
Really, it reminds me of a Oblongs episode where the cops look at each other an say: "Well, she's old, white and has a bible: we better do what she says..." Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Tim: Well, even if that entire section of the constitution is ignored, you initial thought about it being in all the state constitutions is probably correct. I know a lot of the state constitutions also duplicate the Bill of Rights even though they probably don't need to.
Saltah'na: Thanks, that additional information clears up some of the mess. What I'm still concerned about is the parole board telling the prosecutor and the attorney that his release "would undermine the seriousness of the charge". Someone (or many someones) is off in frickin' La-La-Land.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or they're....racist.
Ever been through the Carolinas? It happens.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: I listened to an interview with Mr. Allen's lawyer and I managed to glean these few points: - The Defendant was black and that the home in which the TV set was stolen was owned by an old white woman. According to the attourney, Mr. Allen never had contact with the white woman, nor was there any evidence to suggest that he did. The attourney does not know if this factored into the decision to hand down a life sentence. - The Defendant's previous offenses were quite minor, nothing that would warrant such a life sentence. - Much of the paperwork involving Mr. Allen's incarceration has since dissappeared, including rationales for the sentencing and subsequent parole hearings. - His parole "hearings" were simply nothing more than a simple paper application that is then handled by a desk clerk. - Four years ago, a state prosecutor happened to come across Mr. Allen's file while looking at an unrelated motion. Of course he was aghast of what he saw and contacted the man who would then be Mr. Allen's attourney. - From what I know, all work done by this attourney was clearly pro bono. Mr. Allen's family does not have the financial resources to get a court to overturn the sentence. - Almost all of the fellow prisoners and prison guards felt that Mr. Allen was a friendly man and deserved to be let out early. Unfortunately, this did not affect the outcomes of his parole applications. - When the State prosecutor and the attourney made the request to the parole board to release Mr. Allen, they were given a response that releasing him would "undermine the seriousness of the charge". - When the interviewer asked why this happened, the attourney says that he believes Mr. Allen "fell through the cracks". Despite this, a civil suit is not likely because the conviction, as well as the parole rejections and his incarceration for 35 years was all legal.
this is from the first article.
quote: Allen was a 30-year-old migrant farm worker from Georgia with a criminal history that included burglaries and a violent assault when he sneaked into an unlocked house and stole a 19-inch black-white television worth $140 US.
He was at least a three time loser, so you tend to get life after so many offences.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
I checked, and it looks like North Carolina is one of the states that passed a "three strikes" law in the mid-1990s. However, that wouldn't have any bearing on Junior Allen's case since he was sentenced in 1970, a good quarter-century before the "three strikes" law was enacted. What I can't find out, though, is if North Carolina had a law on the books that allowed for imposing life without parole in light of multiple previous convictions. I'd have to lean towards not, though, since the article implies that he was simply given the maximum allowed punishment under the theft statutes at the time.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Tim: Well, even if that entire section of the constitution is ignored..."
Just so we're clear, I wasn't suggesting that it should be. I just felt like commenting on the other things that happened to be in that same paragraph.