Scott A. Masters, 41, is accused of shoplifting a single donut worth 52 cent in a strong-arm robbery. For that, he could get a sentence of 30 years to life!
... one man's sweet tooth got the better of him. He stole a doughnut. A single doughnut.
Authorities called it strong-arm robbery. The "doughnut man," as the suspect is now known, faces five to 15 years in prison for his crime. And Farmington, a town of 14,000 people about 70 miles south of St. Louis, has been buzzing about it ever since.
"That someone would take just a single doughnut, not something very expensive or extravagant, that's unique," supermarket assistant manager Gary Komar said, smiling.
Scott A. Masters, 41, is accused of shoplifting the pastry and pushing a store worker who tried to stop him. The worker was unhurt. But with that shove, his shoplifting turned into a strong-arm robbery. Masters, who appeared in court Friday, is stunned. The prosecutor shows no signs of backing down. In fact, because Masters has a prior record, he could get a sentence of 30 years to life.
I believe in tough laws, but this is ridiculous. What do you guys think?
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/missouristatenews/story/2F37838AFD546C9A8625736D000B589F?OpenDocument | Donut image from uncleboatshoes [Flickr] - via Blue's News
If we used that argument murderers would get off with no penalty. Child molestors...no penalty.
That's just stupid man.
He broke the law. Actually, he was pretty proficient at it. When he shoved the guy, I'm willing to bet it wasn't for fear of not getting to keep his donut. He knew if he got caught he was in a ton of trouble because of his past.
Let him rot.
it was a fscking donut. The woman employee was the agressor, he offered to give the donut back. Christ all fucking mighty.
Arguably a murder costs a massive amount - loss of income, funeral expenses, investigative and legal expenses, but really you are confusing economic harm with physical harm - which isn't too bright, in my book. I'm not saying the man shouldn't be punished, but 30 years is way too long. It may be the LAW but it wouldn't be JUSTICE.
Wasn't he arrested, prosecuted, and punished for those prior offenses? Isn't adding to his term now because of them in effect repunishing him for things he's already been adjudicated and punished for?
I don't like the idea of locking up someone for 30 years because of who they are (a "bad guy", a repeat felon, etc) when what they did wasn't that severe. If he didn't have a record, would the "strong-arm robbery" of a donut be worth 30 years? I personally don't think so.
Neatorama seriously kicks ass
And people wonder what's wrong with this country. There it is.
Or maybe that's a rant for another post. ;)
One question is whether 30 years for a lifelong felon is appropriate. If he was a first timer, he'd have gotten a light punishment for stealing the donut and pushing the worker. But if someone commits a crime, serves time, doesn't change his ways, commits another crime, doesn't change his ways etc etc, then eventually he's shown he's unable to live by society's rules and thus should spend a significant part of his life in prison.
Nicole Ritchie by comparison received an appropriate sentence for her crime and criminal history. The amount of time she actually served is based on how much room the jails has to hold her. The jail's full, so it had to release people with light sentences early in order to keep the more serious offenders behind bars.
It can maintain a military force in that cesspool called Irag AND throw a habitual criminal in prison for stealing a donut.
Personally, I don't have a problem with either one.
Heck, I thought it was a great idea, until people were thrown in jail for relatively minor crimes - which put a tremendous stress on the prison system and caused overcrowding.
The problem with disproportionately harsh sentences is that they distract from solving the underlying problem of crime and will eventually cause more harm than good.
As far as the comments here are concerned, I find self-righteousness to be a far more repulsive and socially harmful trait than mere kleptomania could ever be.
What puzzles me is why you bring up the whole left/right thing. I didn't mention it, and don't feel it has anything to do with me.
Still wonder what's self-righteous about having basic self-control and expecting it of others.
you guys don't know what the fuck you're doing sometimes haha