Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Thomas Warren Ross

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Derek Twyman?

[edit]

I don't think that saying "Ross is widely known" for a "controversial sentence" is NPOV. I've deleted the first sentence; this makes the facts of the case available without misleading people into thinking that this is the most well known part of his biography.Saschmeidel (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring this content. This case has been gaining considerable attention in both North Carolinian and Canadian media. It has appeared as a topic of discussion at various university law faculties as well (one school has even apparently formed a 'Free Derek Twyman Campaign'). Criticism of Judge Ross has not been flattering (to say the least), but this addition to the article was made in a very NPOV manner. If you'd like additional sources, please request them. But, with all due respect, your lack of awareness about a pressing legal issue is hardly grounds for the removal of this content. Frank Pais (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing this content but putting it here for ease of reference. This appears to be someone's pet cause, but as for it being "widely known," or having an "international movement" I've yet to see evidence of that. If someone has more knowledge of this being truly notable, please say so, but otherwise, I don't think this belongs in an article about Judge Ross. Awbeal (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for this content states that Twyman was sentenced for "a spate of non-violent burglaries." Burglary is the breaking and entering of a dwelling in the night with the specific intent to commit a felony therein, and in North Carolina as elsewhere it has always been considered one of the most heinous crimes a felon can commit. Indeed, the North Carolina Constitution of 1868 (which was the state constitution until it was replaced by the constitution of 1971) limited capital offenses to just four: murder, rape, burglary, and arson. As a former prosecutor and a former associate professor of public law and government at the University of North Carolina, it was my experience that neither prosecutors nor judges considered burglary to be "non-violent." Certainly the breaking into a house at night creates a high risk of grave violence. The 160 year term was the result of four consecutive 40 year sentence. A sentence of 40 years for burglary most likely indicates that houses were occupied during the nights they were burglarized. Burglary of an occupied dwelling is burglary in the first degree. I think that including this content as it now appears is extremely misleading. It should be deleted, but if it is to be included, then additional context should be added, including the evidence that was before the judge at the sentencing hearing. Just some of that evidence includes the following: "After [Twyman] was released [from serving 6 year for an earlier burglary conviction], it was a very short time [before] he went right back to the same thing, breaking into occupied dwellings in Greensboro. He broke into a large number of houses with people in them. He did it at night, stole things. In one particular situation, he ransacked a house severely. It happened to be occupied by a woman who was blind and obviously learned to live in her house by knowing where everything was. When it was ransacked, it completely disrupted her life." https://businessnc.com/pillars-of-north-carolina-thomas-ross/ 47.134.162.95 (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ross is widely known for his controversial sentence of a non-violent offender to 160 years in prison. In 1989, Derek Twyman (a Canadian citizen living in North Carolina) was given four consecutive 40-year sentences on four convictions for minor property crimes, totalling 160 years in person. An international movement has since developed to free Twyman, and has said that the sentence given by Ross constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment", contrary to the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.[1][2]

Here is the evidence you might be locking for: http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/sh/A77MM47Hyc/long-time-gone/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.94.40 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]