Hum Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 HILLSBOROUGH, North Carolina (AP) -- After 35 years in prison for stealing a black-and-white television set Junior Allen is a free man. Allen, 65, walked out of prison Friday, ending a case that attracted widespread attention, because he remained in jail while other inmates convicted of murder, rape or child molestation were released. "I'm glad to be out," Allen told supporters outside Orange Correctional Center. "I've done too much time for what I did. I won't be truly happy until I see a sign that says I'm outside of North Carolina." 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-and-white television worth $140. His parole could last up to five years, meaning he could gain complete freedom by age 70. "For a black-and-white TV, how much do you have to pay?" Hasberry said. "We've got an in-house joke here: How much time would he have gotten if he had stolen a color TV?" :huh: more: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/28/televisi...l.ap/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Wow that's nuts, It would be more understandable if he stole one of the first ever Black and White TVs in the 50s that were worth tens of thousands of dollars or a Prototype Color TV worth tens of thousands of dollars. But a $140 TV???? I hope the guards were soft on him for such a small offense and gave him TV in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Suraci Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 What the hell? That's way too long - no one deserves 35 years of their life to be taken from them for such a small crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vannos Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Allen was a 30-year-old migrant farm worker from Georgia with a criminal history that included burglaries and a violent assault more: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/28/televisi...l.ap/index.html 585985658[/snapback] He didnt JUST steal a TV. He was prob a murderer or rapist wating to happen, so they locked him up instead. Obviously the courts didnt give him 35 years for just the TV, he was likely a very high risk individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ventrox Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 that's..... too much why do those people get so much time, while the ones that should be put into jail are still out there free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Suraci Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 He didnt JUST steal a TV. He was prob a murderer or rapist wating to happen, so they locked him up instead. Obviously the courts didnt give him 35 years for just the TV, he was likely a very high risk individual. 585985673[/snapback] They still can't jail someone for 35 years for the *probability* of being a rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makeshift Hammer Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 (edited) I think there's more (or less even depending how you look at it) to the story than they're saying. News media do that a lot, leave words and facts out that would make you think "well, ok, what's the story then?" It says "He wasn't the best prisoner, (but) he wasn't the worst," < notice they ended the quote with a comma indicating that what follows could explain what he done whilst IN prison that kept him there for that length of time. For all you know he could have assaulted people, took drugs, tried to escape etc. i'm sure he wasn't a little angel who kept getting overlooked by the parole board. Edited May 29, 2005 by Makeshift Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolslacker Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rushnak Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Wow, bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane Pitman Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 He was a black migrant worker with a criminal record in the south in a time when racial battles and tensions were still high. Do you really think he got a fair shake? I feel sorry for the guy. I mean, he broke the law, sure, but does the punishment fit the crime? Some state records say Allen roughed up the 87-year-old woman who lived there, but he was not convicted of assault.Instead, he was sentenced in 1970 to life in prison for second-degree burglary. The penalty for the offense has since been changed to a maximum of three years in prison. Why didn't he or his family file an appeal based on the sentencing changes when the sentencing guidlines were reduced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fighter-X Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 I think 10 years would have been enough. :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Probabation would of been enough. I stole cars and got arrested and im only on diversion. Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbweb77 Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 He got what he deserved, the problem is we let rapists and murders etc.. off to easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jorge Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 That is insane. Just goes to show that the System is screwed up. :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 He got what he deserved, the problem is we let rapists and murders etc.. off to easy. 585986190[/snapback] how could you say that? i could see maybe 5 years if hes done other stuff, but 35? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noping Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 He has only himself to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bukowski Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 Maybe they forgot about him for 30 years. And made up some bull**** story that his sentence was in fact 35 years :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted May 29, 2005 Share Posted May 29, 2005 I think there's more (or less even depending how you look at it) to the story than they're saying. News media do that a lot, leave words and facts out that would make you think "well, ok, what's the story then?" It says "He wasn't the best prisoner, (but) he wasn't the worst," < notice they ended the quote with a comma indicating that what follows could explain what he done whilst IN prison that kept him there for that length of time. For all you know he could have assaulted people, took drugs, tried to escape etc. i'm sure he wasn't a little angel who kept getting overlooked by the parole board. 585985693[/snapback] Or because proper English requires some form of punctuation before the ending quotation mark? :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strekship Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 I don't think that it was too much time, they said that he hads a history, includeing a violent crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3nuo Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Thats too much time. Period. They can't lock him up longer in order to prevent him for doing something based upon what they think he's capable of doing. Regardless of his history, (unless theres something missing to this whole story) he was charged for a stupid crime that in some places wouldn't even bring prosecution. For the charge that he had, he should have gotten something far less. If they wanted to put him away for something he "could do", they would have had to have had a better case than just a TV theft. The system is truly screwed up. Rapists and murderers getting set free after a year or two, yet a stupid and petty crime lands a dude 35 years.. thats just wrong. oh well, had he not stolen it, they would have not locked him up unlawfully for so long, ergo this thread would be nonexistant.. so it is still his fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted June 1, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 1, 2005 I am not sure what it is like in the states, but in canada break in entry to a residence can carry the max sentence of life in prison. This is to dissuade home invaders because of the possibility of them breaking in and end up killing a resident in the heat of the moment if they get walked in on. Now obviously this guy just got it because of the race issue in the 70's. But I think more people shoudl get much longer for home invasions for the reasons stated above. PS This guy looked like something of a career criminal and this probably stopped some possibly serious crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DangR Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 If that was in Norway, he would be out by 3 months :) But our criminal politic sucks :blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Kompressor Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 what a crap system. yet killers and sex offenders get to roam after a few. what a joke. probably because it was indeed during the racial period why he got such a lengthy time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mx Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 If that was in Norway, he would be out by 3 months :) But our criminal politic sucks :blush: 585999729[/snapback] hah. In the UK murderers get less than those who rob. Well usually, it seems every country's law system sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts