Man Sentenced To Life In Prison For Shoplifting

A man in Mississippi is heading up the river for the rest of his life after he was caught heisting some stuff from a Kohl’s store and then led police on a car chase. Oh, and also because he’d been convicted 10 previous times.

After being arrested for trying to cash in his five-finger discount at Kohl’s, local police in Mississippi ran the man’s name through the system and came up with a bonanza of a rap sheet from his days in Tennessee: 18 arrests, 10 convictions (4 felony convictions; 6 prior felonies reduced to misdemeanors).

The wannabe thief was convicted of three felonies and given a mandatory life sentence, as per Mississippi state law.

Want to bet the TV reporter caught shoplifting last week is happy she was snagged in Connecticut?

The local police chief sums it up best: “If you’re gonna commit felonies, you’d better keep your stupid self in the state that lets you get away with ’em.”



Edit Your Comment

  1. Shonky McShonk says:

    “If you’re gonna commit felonies, you’d better keep your stupid self in the state that lets you get away with ’em.”

    DOUBLE TRUE!!!!!

  2. coren says:

    Hahaha I like the slightly creative headline here. (no really, I do, usually I’m against them but this one cracks me up)

  3. dreamfish says:

    They obviously don’t accept the idea of ‘spent’ convictions.

  4. Daniel Rutter says:

    I presume that Darnel Wilson’s previous ten convictions over 24 years in that home of bleeding-heart hippie government, Tennessee, resulted in no punishment at all, right? ‘Cos that’s what’d have to be the deal if he actually “got away with ’em”.

    Or a month in prison, 180 days of community service, something like that; that’d all be good enough to pretty much count as getting away with it too, in my book.

    (To TOTALLY get away with it, you should get your convictions for very serious crimes completely vacated, but that’s an option usually only available to role-models like Oliver North.)

    I think someone might have mentioned it if Darnel Wilson had never previously spent a day in prison, though.

  5. Eat The Rich -They are fat and succulent says:

    And yet our Supreme Court has basically ruled that ethically corrupt and greedy business executives can get away with stealing tens of millions of dollars from shareholders and companies because it’s really not a crime to dishonestly execute the services of your position.

    Who has hurt more people? Who has damaged more jobs? Who has stolen more?

    This is what happens when laws are made by the wealthy, for the wealthy. Welcome to America.

    • dreamfish says:


      Isn’t that the standard response?

      • RandomHookup says:

        I’m thinking Cuba because the weather is better and it’s still a communist country.

      • Ichabod says:

        No need the USA has turned into Russia moron!

        Land of the free had more people in jail than Russian when the wall came down and a lower population as well.

        • FrugalFreak says:

          I remember a statement from my history books

          “Better Dead than Red” Joseph Goebbels

    • Commenter24 says:

      Please have some basic understanding of the Supreme Court’s ruling and the “honest services” law before you comment. The SCOTUS only said that the current enforcement of the “honest services” statute, which is applied through the federal mail and wire fraud laws, can’t be used to prosecute executives who didn’t take kickbacks or bribes. The court did NOT say that such executives can’t be convicted of OTHER crimes. The fact is the DOJ likes to use “honest services” because it was, up until this ruling, ridiculously easy to prove. In fact, it was so easy that the DOJ could very easily have prosecuted virtually everyone in the country. Ever used the internet, phone or mail at your office for personal reasons? Guilty of mail/wire fraud via honest services.

      • Eat The Rich -They are fat and succulent says:

        I do understand the ruling and the laws which were addressed in it.

        The “honest services” loophole was helpful in allowing prosecution of white collar criminals who had armies of attorneys advising them on how to subvert and skirt the law while damaging the assets, employees and stockholders and companies which they were charged with leading.

        In many cases, it was the only way to obtain convictions on individuals who were clearly committing crimes but did so in a way which could be argued as not technically “illegal”. The criminal law system in the US can’t keep up with the new and creative methods which the corporate legal systems come up with work-arounds, particularly in business dealings. That is the reason “White-Collar” crime is so difficult to prosecute and convict.

        As I stated before, the laws are made by the wealthy and well connected (politicians) and are strongly influenced by lobbyists and donations. As an average American, I have no such luxury. The laws which govern my middle class existence and which I adhere to are far more defined and enforced more strictly than any which govern corporations and their executive leadership. If I rob a bank for 15k, I will go away for 20 years in a horrible prison. Messrs. Skilling, Lay and their ilk may get a fine (paid by the corporation) and a few years in a cush federal low security facility like Pensacola (home to Mark Whitacre) if any time at all.

        So back to my original point. If I rob one bank of 15k, my penalty is greater than a man who systematically rapes an entire organization, its stockholders and it’s customers.

        It’s the golden rule. Those who have the gold, make the rules.

        We do not live in a representative republic anymore. Those days are long gone. We live in a plutocratic corporatocracy.

        • Commenter24 says:

          So with honest services prosecutions it’s your contention that the ends justify the means?

          • Eat The Rich -They are fat and succulent says:

            My contention was it was one of precious few tools which the justice department had in it’s arsenal to prosecute people who would otherwise skate off without any penalty for what should be considered massive and systematic criminal behavior.

            Now with that tool taken away, the court has reduced the ability of the justice department to prosecute these cases. Do the ends justify the means? In some situations, yes.

            • Commenter24 says:

              Well, if Congress would take a little time to re-write the terrible, hodgepodge Federal criminal statutes perhaps the DOJ could have a better arsenal. This isn’t the court’s fault; it’s Congresses. Further, the states could also prosecute, so it’s not like these guys skate free because they can’t get hit with a vague, over-broad statute. The fact that the statute is the “one of precious few” doesn’t mean it should stand in the face of clear problems.

            • huadpe says:

              I find it a major problem when you have to use a catch-all law to prosecute people. It gives the state an insane amount of power, and basically means anyone can be jailed for such crimes as being a political enemy of the US Attorney, pissing off an FBI agent, or getting on the wrong side of a congressman or local party hack.

              The state should have to prove specific crimes where the definition of the crime includes the precise harm to others that has been caused. Also there should be a legitimate federal question.

            • LandruBek says:

              Vague, overbroad laws: a cure worse than the disease.

            • BigSlowTarget says:

              The government is a corrupt plutocracy so to change it we should give more power to the corrupt plutocracy. This doesn’t sound like a good plan.

              ‘Honest services’ was just begging to be misused in support of exactly what you dislike.

        • mossy says:

          Your comparison seems way off to me. If you did indeed rob your local bank of 15k as in your example you surely would have do so with violence or the threat of violence. This isn’t the case when it comes to white collar crime. Do you believe that someone who sticks a gun in a bank teller’s face for 15k should have the same punishment as someone who commits 15k worth of fraud?

    • Fantoche_de_Chaussette says:

      In America’s system of Federalism, most criminal laws are state laws, not Federal laws. If you rob or murder someone, you’re (usually) only in violation of a state law, not a Federal law.

      The “honest services” Federal law was a huge loophole that basically allowed any Federal prosecutor to go after anyone for being “dishonest”. That is way too much power for the Federal government, particularly in the area of criminal law enforcement which is usually left to the states. SCOTUS did the right thing in striking down this overbroad law.

      Fraud is certainly still a crime in your state. Just not necessarily a Federal crime.

    • PsiCop says:

      “Two wrongs make a right” is fallacious thinking. That some people have gotten away with crime does not mean others should, also. It means everyone should be held accountable for their actions.

  6. TinaBringMeTheAx says:

    If he was convicted ten times, it mean he did it a thousand times.

    Good riddance.

  7. blueneon says:

    I dunno, seems kinda harsh to me

    • wonderkitty now has two dogs says:

      It is, but these “three strikes and you’re out” felony conviction laws are pretty well known in the states that have them. I don’t really agree with it, either, since it does seem to target a specific group of people- but at the same time, they know what could happen.

      • ben says:


        • DangerMouth says:

          Criminals who can’t afford a better lawyer than the public defender assigned to them. A good (expensive) lawyer can generally get a felony reduced to a misdemeanor.

          However this particular guy sounds as if he’s had his share of leniency from the courts. I still don’t think this is ‘life sentence’ territory, tho.

          • wonderkitty now has two dogs says:

            Exactly- poor people. Public defenders must do enough of the job so they don’t get disbarred, and that’s it. My family’s personal experience with public defenders for non-violent offenses as left a bad taste in my mouth about them. I usually revere those who choose to work for “everyone else”, but some of these guys are just scumbags who don’t give a damn.

            • pantheonoutcast says:

              Then poor people shouldn’t commit crimes. It’s a simple equation.

              • DorsalRootGanglion says:

                Except that many poor people grow up in a culture where “crime” isn’t frowned upon. Their morality is totally backwards, much like that of someone who has been repeatedly molested as a child and turns around to molest his own child. Yes, there is evidence to back this up. We know that uneducated, poor, young people have a harder time with understanding right from wrong. Why not fix that?

                Also, you’re implying that it’s okay for rich people to commit crime, again.

                • pantheonoutcast says:

                  I’m not implying anything of the sort. All criminals, rich, poor, in between, should be treated the exact same way – harshly.


                  “We know that uneducated, poor, young people have a harder time with understanding right from wrong. Why not fix that?”

                  We can – by instituting harsher prison sentences and other such punishments. Regardless if their moral compass is undeveloped, those “poor young uneducated people” will be less apt to enter into a life of crime if they see first hand the consequences of doing so. If the gangbanger down the street gets a six month suspended sentence for assault, then the neighborhood kids will look at the prison system as nothing more than joke, and, in many cases, idolize the criminal. I’ve seen it every day for the past ten years working in the South Bronx – for so many of these “urban youth”, being a criminal is a badge of honor which gives them power and street cred.

                  If, however, they have to serve a long stretch in solitary with little more than bread and water for a violent offense, upon their release, their attitudes, as well as their peers’ attitudes concerning criminal behavior, might change.

                  • sagodjur says:

                    Yeah, cause the current statistics on rehabilitation and rates of imprisonment in the US really support your statements.

                    • pantheonoutcast says:

                      “The recidivism rate for prisoners released from prison within one year is 44.1%; this number rises to 67.5% within three years of being released from prison. Sixty-seven percent of the people who were rearrested were charged with 750,000 new crimes, which include property offenses, drug offenses, public-order offenses, other offenses, unknown, and over 100,000 of these crimes were violent crimes. Of the new violent crimes committed, 2,871 were murder and 2,444 were rape.”

                      Based on these numbers, the prisons aren’t working.

                    • mandy_Reeves says:

                      +1 For once I agree with Pantheon here. I remember my sociology professor back in September, saying the exact thing about the prison system and agreeing.

                  • zjgz says:

                    Oh god, I’m close to being done with reading the consumerist because of the comments people make. Everyone seems to think they know more and think the articles are black and white.

                    “We know that uneducated, poor, young people have a harder time with understanding right from wrong. Why not fix that?”

                    They don’t have a hard time understanding it. Its completely understood. But why would a person with more money need to steal? Its much more likely that someone without money will become desperate and steal. And I don’t want to hear any of the “Oh, well they can work hard” bullshit because you aren’t in anyone’s situation but your own.

                    • 47ka says:

                      “Oh god, I’m close to being done with reading the consumerist because of the comments people make.”

                      Right with you there.

                  • Ichabod says:

                    Teach them? Prisons are a huge money maker, nobody is going to teach people better morays it would cost the prison owners too much money.

              • sagodjur says:

                Yes. Poor people shouldn’t commit crimes if they can’t afford to defend themselves in court. Since rich people can afford to commit crimes and defend themselves in court with an expensive lawyer, we should set a minimum income or net worth level for laws. If you’re above that minimum then you can’t be prosecuted under that law. Why should rich people have to waste money just to not get prosecuted? We should totally make it easier on them. It’s tough being rich.


            • BigDave says:

              Speak for yourself. It depends on the state/county. In Los Angeles, the public defenders are THE best option – they are the largest criminal defense firm in the WORLD. Better to not generalize- makes you look stupid.

          • common_sense84 says:

            Are you joking? How does it target poor people? Under 3 strikes you have to commit 3 crimes.

            It doesn’t target poor people. It targets people who refuse to stop committing crimes.

            Sure rich people can get a good lawyer and may be able to extend their limit, but that doesn’t make the law target poor people. It just means rich people can buy their way out.

            But in the end why would rich people steal from stores? They would have to have a mental problem to steal for no reason.

            • DangerMouth says:

              There are plenty of losers out there who do criminal things (drugs, theft, robberies, even felonies), but have families who would pony up for the expensive lawyers.

              I never said “this targets poor people” (maybe you were responding to the wrong person?) but that is still the net effect of the law. If you don’t believe a good (expensive) lawyer will work harder to get a reduced plea than your average PD, then you lack experience with the criminal justice system. (not that that’s a bad thing)

          • BigDave says:

            You don’t know WTF you’re talking about. Public Defenders are often better than private attorneys. If you don’t know anything about the law – you should STFU! Let actual attorneys give the informed opinions! What do you know about public defenders, except for the misinformation from crappy cop shows?


    • barty says:

      You’ve evidently never had anything stolen from you before.

      Thieves can rot in jail forever.

  8. EverCynicalTHX says:

    Sounds like he has a very long rap sheet and continuous history of criminal behavior, the post title is misleading.

  9. fuceefacee says:

    It does seem a bit harsh to me but then again he seems to be an unrepentant individual. I guess what bothers me is this appears to be more about politics than about justice. As stated in the video they were sending a “message” by making an “example” of him. Now the taxpayer is going to spend about $27,000 a year on his incarceration for the rest of his life. I’m guessing he’s about 40 or so.

    He might have gotten some sympathy from me if he had skipped the high speed getaway. This put the lives of others in real danger.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      “Four others went before him just this year, and Murphy tells me he’s got dozens waiting in line to go before a judge, and maybe off to prison, for life. “,0,438447.story

    • arachne says:

      Three strikes law. Three felonies– in some states it is three violent felonies or serious felonies– and its figured the person is a revolving door type so just locking him or her up for life will save a lot of trouble and expense. I think in Tenn it is violent felonies. Don’t know about Miss.

      Check California for some of the ultimate shoplifting leading to 25 to life cases. And I don’t know what it says about the class of criminal I know that 18 arrests doesn’t sound all that bad.

      • Sian says:

        Yeah, how much are they saving in felony court costs by locking this guy up? Trials are expensive.

    • Commenter24 says:

      Sending a “message”/making an “Example” are one of the accepted theories of criminal punishment; it has little to do with politics. It’s all about deterrence. The other criminals see what happens and are theoretically “deterred” from committing crimes. Whether it actually works or not is another matter, but it’s not pure politics.

  10. SalParadise says:

    And this is the problem with “three strikes and you’re out.” Mandatory sentencing laws for people with poor impulse control who do not and cannot foresee the consequences of their actions are not a wise way for any state to spend its money.

    The good people of Mississippi have sent this fellow away because he had the poor judgement to commit a crime in a state that does not put up with that sort of foolishness. Thanks for taking this dangerous felon off the street, Mississippi, but is it really worth the $100,000 a year you will have to spend for the rest of this man’s life to incarcerate him?

    • EllenRose says:

      “Taking him off the streets” gains a little extra power when you realize he did the car-chase thing. That puts more than a store’s profits in jeopardy.

    • RickN says:

      What “three strikes”? 4 felonies and 6 felonies-reduced-to-misdemeanors before these convictions, 3 more felonies after.

      Glad to have him off the streets.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      Yeah, I mean who could forsee the outcome and what the possible ramifications after:”18 arrests, 10 convictions (4 felony convictions; 6 prior felonies reduced to misdemeanors).”

      Getting caught must not have occurred to him.

    • dg says:

      This guy was a moron – and had been a moron for a long time. Kudos to MS for taking him off the streets. As for the $100K/yr, I’d say no more life sentences. Just execute ’em – he did it, there’s no debate, no “oops he might not have done this crime” – he did it. He’s going to spend the rest of his life in prison at great cost to the State – might as well put an end to it as quickly as possible.

    • varro says:

      Methinks the felony wasn’t the shoplifting, it was the eluding.

      But life for anything less than murder or multiple rapes is draconian….and seeing Haley Barbour cuddling up to poor little Bee Pee shows you what Mississippi thinks of various crimes.

      5-10, yep. That’s fine for this guy. He should serve his time with members of BP management for “risking a catastrophe” and criminal negligence.

  11. mmbb says:

    I wonder what the punishment would be for shoplifting from the prison commissary. Or, for that matter, running away from prison.

    I guess Mississippi doesn’t have a budget crisis and can still afford the $15,000 per year to provide housing, clothing, feeding, and entertainment to Darnell.

    (Hey, wait, what?!?? The annual cost of housing inmates in my state is over $30,000. Why the discrepancy? Labor, cost of iron and concrete, gourmet food and designer prison uniforms… grrr. I think we should send all inmates everywhere to Hotel Sheriff Czar Joe Arpaio.)

  12. shenaniganz08 says:

    Wow did we really need such a misleading Title ?

    what is this now Digg ?

  13. DangerMouth says:

    Dudes, seriously? Are you employing a headline writer from the Weekly World News?

    This is like saying “MAN GETS DEATH SENTENCE FOR RUNNING A STOP SIGN”, and then discovering the guy was a serial killer who had been on the run for 5 years.

  14. lockdog says:

    Is our society completely out of new ideas? Surely there has got to be some sort of middle road between the revolving door prison/courts system that let this guy build up a rap sheet that long and locking him up for life at a cost of tens of thousands per year. I know the prison industrial complex might not like it, but I’d like to hear some out of the box solutions here. Would intensive therapy do it, early intervention in the school systems? Hell, do we need to bring back prison farms or indentured servitude? Locking this guy up for the next 40 years is attacking the symptom not the diseases. (note, not saying that the previous solution: basically ignoring his crimes and hoping he’ll go away is any better).

    • Fantoche_de_Chaussette says:

      You assume the problem we’re trying to solve is “how do we create a humane, low-crime-rate society.”

      The problem our political leaders are really trying to solve is “what macho publicity-stunt legislation can I pass so that I’ll look even more ‘tough on crime’ than the other candidates.”

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        If criminals wouldn’t run from the police, then police wouldn’t have to chase them.

        • Ichabod says:

          And if people didn’t print such stupid things I wouldn’t have to slap them like the idiots they are.

          • pantheonoutcast says:

            If you’re going to be an internet tough guy, I suggest you use a more intimidating method of threatening people. “Slap” just doesn’t have anything behind it.

            May I suggest, “Crush your trachea.” It’s a popular one nowadays, I hear.

            • areaman says:

              The think the most tough guy (ie Chuck Norris level) one so far is “I’ll gladly donate the 35 cents for the bullet.”

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      “Locking this guy up for the next 40 years is attacking the symptom not the diseases.”

      You’re assuming that the criminal mindset is something we as a society can cure. It can’t be cured, ever. Sure we can early interventions for people when they are young and make stupid mistakes, like graffiti, for instance, but let’s face it – a guy who thinks it’s ok to stick up gas stations at 18 years old is going to continue doing it when he’s 40, just as long as society continues to 1) coddle prisoners and 2) glorify criminal behavior.

    • mandy_Reeves says:

      I say therapy…if he isn’t violent there must be some underlying mental issue. Possibly OCD or a childhood trauma of losing all his possessions, so he now has to steal to feel whole again?

    • mandy_Reeves says:

      the above post by me was NOT intended for sarcasm btw. I was using my sociological imagination . :P

  15. MrBobo says:

    Meh.. It’s not like the arrest forced him to abandon a Rhodes Scholarship or anything. Now gets free food, medical,housing and can continue to be a general waste in prison. It might even be a lifestyle upgrade for him.

  16. shepd says:

    Wow, you guys take your crime seriously. When I was waiting in court (not for myself, to help someone else) we saw a case go by where someone pled guilty to stealing about $15 of stuff from a drugstore (nothing odd, toothpaste, toothbrush, etc). The crown got the 6 months prison they were asking for.

    This was because the judge stopped reading his rap sheet out after about the 5th conviction, and simply counted them all, asking everyone in the court if that would be okay (nobody complained). IIRC, there were 78 convictions on 3 pages. I believe the man was about 40 years old. Feel free to work out how many times a year he sees a judge. :D

    • Ragman says:

      One of my relatives that’s a cop told me that they have repeat misdemeanor offenders who do it to get a short stint in the local lockup so they could get food and shelter. He said they’d walk into the cellblock and it would sound like a homecoming b/c the prisoners knew each other (and not just from being in jail – many of them lived in the same areas).

      Were any of his priors felonies? That many misdemeanors, dude needs psych help. That many felonies, he’s more of a threat to society.

      The three strikes laws are mostly concerned with felonies. Not to condone shoplifting, but it’s not the threat to safety that leading cops on a high speed chase is.

  17. smartmuffin says:

    Good. One less scumbag on the streets making life worse for everyone else. More of this, please.

  18. Mr_Human says:

    When I was in 5th grade, the Soviet Union was our big adversary, so naturally we studied life over there in a class. In the textbook was a story about a man who was convicted of stealing a pair of shoes and sentenced to 7 years. The book was a bit critical of this, and used it as an example of the harsh life under the Soviet government, I remember the last lines of that particular story: “He was sentenced to seven years. For a pair of shoes.”

    • Fantoche_de_Chaussette says:

      I miss the Soviet Union. They gave America an ideological reason to be “better than” them.

      Back then, the US was officially against:
      – Indefinite detention without trial
      – Warrantless surveillance of domestic phone calls
      – Wars of aggression
      – Requiring government permission for domestic travel
      – Massive levels of imprisonment

      These days … not so much.

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        To be fair, though, during the Cold War, we had far fewer Islamic extremists trying to kill us and far fewer illegal immigrants streaming across the border.

        The things you’ve listed are somewhat necessary evils in our wonderfully “diverse” contemporary society.

        • DorsalRootGanglion says:

          If you’ve noticed, those measures have been used primarily against American citizens (especially the illegal wiretaps) for non terrorism-related crimes. Most of the airline screening measures are put into place AFTER a thwarted attack GETS ONTO THE PLANE. So we’re screening out something that probably won’t happen again after we’ve already screwed it up. It’s reactionary and doesn’t work. Oh, and that awesome no-fly list that keeps off infants but allows a known bomber to get on the plane and almost leave the country.

          There’s only been an increase in terrorism since our disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan, plus the general destruction of the lives of soldiers and the people there. Meanwhile, we’re not actually fighting wars that need to be fought, like the rape-a-thon that is the Congo.

          Plus, we’re taking people and torturing them (doesn’t work) or sending them to Egypt or Syria and torturing them there (still doesn’t work). Gosh, that’s a great idea.

          There’s 0 evidence that any of this has made us anything but less free and more paranoid. Give how much hullabaloo is made over every arrest for terrorism, I’m guessing we’ve not stopped very much.

          • pantheonoutcast says:

            You and I have very different definitions of the phrase “American citizens.”

            I do agree with you, though, that so much of our energy is spent in theatrics and knee-jerk policies regarding terrorism. However, with every fringe “human rights” group screaming “Racism!” and “Bias!”, the real issues get drowned out by the noise. The only reason I have to take my shoes off and have my luggage searched at the airport is because our security forces have been hamstrung by ridiculous policies which prohibit “profiling” (an action that used to be called “good police work”).

            I’d feel a lot more free (don’t have any problem with paranoia, though – I’m willing and able to admit that there are certain groups of people out there willing to kill us because their invisible man says to do so) if there were more people willing to stand up and call a spade a spade. Until that happens, however, be prepared for more security theatre and a shifting of our resources away from the real threats – all in the name of “fairness”.

        • sagodjur says:

          Joe McCarthy called from the grave and he wants his mentality back.

          And some cheetos. He said they don’t have cheetos in hell…

          • pantheonoutcast says:

            You’re right – the threat of which I speak is completely fabricated. In fact, I made it all up. The recent Times Square bomber? I built him out of papier-mâché, duct tape and a motor from a remote controlled helicopter.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      So the whole threatening peoples lives doesn’t matter to you? If a member of your family was crossing the street when this “innocent” person was fleeing, and was hit, would you ask that they get a slap on the wrist, for they were “just shoplifting, and this isn’t Soviet Russia!”

      • Fantoche_de_Chaussette says:

        The “car chase” thing is a red herring.

        What kind of amoral, testosterone-poisoned police department makes it a policy to engage in high-speed car-chases with shoplifters? I expect police departments to use better safety judgment than this.

    • DangerMouth says:

      In Russia, shoes walk YOU.

    • cowboyesfan says:

      The prison industry is about the only growing business here in America. You can’t outsource prison guards.

  19. sqeelar says:

    I applaud the taxpayers of Mi$$i$$ippi for having the noblese oblige to offer this miscreant free room and board with a generous tip to his private jailer friend of politicians for only charging slightly more than a year at Harvard. I’m pleased to know that such no nonense legal system doesn’t require any funding from outside of the state, since it is so rich as to actually take in less than it pays out in federal taxes.

  20. smo0 says:

    Life in prison for stealing … yet kiddie rapers get 7 years….

    Our system is f**ked… think about that the next time you all are congratulating the government on a “job well done.”

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      This was a state law. If you have a problem with your states laws, you can do something about it. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about.

      • smo0 says:

        This pretty much occurs in most states… yes they are constantly reforming laws – but I used to volunteer for an anti-pedo site… I familiarized myself with most of the laws.

        So thank you for your comment – maybe I deserved that “comeback” but it was a general reference to how somethings are “worse” than others not my state in particular.

        Smiley……….. face.

      • sagodjur says:

        Can you do something about it, though? Can one person change the laws? I thought that was the point about democracy, that no one person can change the laws all by his/herself. That’d be a dictatorship.

        So if someone tried to change the laws but failed because politicians and other voters didn’t vote their way, are they then allowed to complain?

        • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

          One person can. Megan’s Law. Amber Alert. All laws/policies started by one person.

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      It was stealing this time. Plus the other 10 convictions. It’s not like he made some sort of one-time mistake.

  21. Sefford says:

    The public execution-style feelings of reprisal against a criminal are palpable here. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

    There are 8 million incarcerated in this country, are they all an example to the rest?

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      Yup. The vast majority of people don’t commit crimes for two reasons:

      1) They are moral individuals OR

      2) They don’t want to go to jail.

    • ChunkyBarf says:

      I am also confused by the point you are trying to make. I am all for ‘rehabilitation’, but I am not a supporter of coddling criminals. Is that what you were implying? I think that convicted (emphasis on convicted) criminals should come out of prison better than when they went in, but ultimately they chose their fate. I am not going to send them hugs and rainbows in the hope they get better. Rather I hope they understand that crimes are not to be tolerated in ‘civil’ society and work to rectify their moral aptitude.

  22. evnmorlo says:

    We should go back to using banishment.

  23. El-Brucio says:

    In British Columbia 50 percent of reported crimes are committed by 10 percent of offenders. They even have a name for these kinds of criminals – prolific offenders.

    They’re trying a different system to the “three strikes you are out” method. It will be interesting to see which is more effective.

    But I do have to wonder, if they do prove to be incorrigible, if it is actually cheaper for society to simply use longer prison terms.

  24. Eat The Rich -They are fat and succulent says:

    Agreed. However do you truly expect our obviously bought and paid for congress and senate to write any law which doesn’t have a loophole or benefit for corporate interests? C’mon…it’s their bread and butter, the bunch of corrupt bastards they are.

    Take a good hard look at that new “Financial Reform Package” …A good LONG look at it, you will find that in general, it throws a couple bones to consumers but gives away a huge bunch of benefits to business interests and banks.

    Same crap, different day.

  25. JiminyChristmas says:

    It would be interesting to know precisely what the prior felony convictions were for. If I had to hazard a guess I would say they were drug-related. Possession of 0.5oz (aka: 14 grams or about $250 worth) of marijuana will get you a felony drug charge. That’s not exactly drug kingpin stuff, if you ask me. In many jurisdictions simple possession of a certain amount of drugs automatically gets you an ‘intent to distribute’ (i.e.: drug dealer) charge – regardless of what you actually intended to do with it.

    So, it’s pretty easy to imagine how someone who is basically a petty drug dealer can rack up what appears to be an impressive felony record. It’s a fair question to ask what the cost/benefit to society is for locking up those sorts of people for life. Luckily for the taxpayers of Mississippi, their state treats prison inmates very poorly so it will ‘only’ cost about $275,000 to $550,000 to lock Darnell Wilson up for 20 to 40 years. I hope they find it’s worth it to them.

  26. VashTS says:

    Feel bad but he deserves it. Especially seeing race his car in the video. Goodbye good riddance. Hope more of those type of folks move to Mississippi so they get there deserved justice. If only this could be applied to Politicians and government and corporate types.

  27. ap0 says:

    I’m normally pretty anti-pig, but this guy doesn’t seem like he’s going to ever reform. I think it’ll be less of a headache for all of us if he’s just locked up.

  28. Tvhargon says:

    Is it just me, or does that cop look like George Bush?

  29. lawgirl502 says:

    Yes, the guy is an idiot, but that law is seriously. Taxpayers are going to literally pay for it. Prison is really meant for violent offenders who cannot safely live in the community and are a threat to society. Petty theft doesn’t warrant this punishment.

  30. lawgirl502 says:

    Yes, the guy is an idiot, but that law is seriously flawed. Taxpayers are going to literally pay for it. Prison is really meant for violent offenders who cannot safely live in the community and are a threat to society. Petty theft doesn’t warrant this punishment.

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      You miss the part that talks about his 10 previous convictions? This man is incapable of living within society and should be removed from it.

  31. Ichabod says:

    F-ing ridiculous!!

    First the police risk peoples lives in a high speed chase, F-ing stupid!
    Second life in jail @ a cost $35000 per year for a non violent offender! Cruel and Unusual!

    The only lives the pro Law and Order Repuglicans care about are the unborn.

  32. NydiaGeben says:

    Don’t like 3 times caught and you are out? How about 10 times? Or 100? Or 1,000? Not counting the times he wasn’t caught.

  33. zombie_batch says:

    Good job on the sensationalist title for this post. It was necessary.

  34. SlimDan22 says:

    I know this guy is just a career criminal, and i have no sympathy for him, but i think it would be better financially for the state (and the taxpayers!!) for them to give him a lesser sentence maybe 10 years? and require a ridiculous amount of community service, i think they need to save the room for people that are doing more harm like murderers, violent criminals, drug producers in the area (probably meth), rapists, etc.

  35. Extended-Warranty says:

    Good riddance to this piece of trash.

    10 convictions should result in getting shot out back. Save us all the money and hassle.

  36. Dondegroovily says:

    Three strikes laws encourage two-bit criminals to murder as follows:

    A guy has two robbery convictions on his record, both which qualify under three-strikes in his state. He is committing a third robbery when the owner walks in. What to do – well, the owner will call the cops, you’ll get arrested and get life in prison. Or, you can kill him. You’ll get life for the murder, but only if caught. The murder gives you the chance of getting away with it. No murder means guaranteed life in prison, murder means possible freedom.

  37. gman863 says:

    Given this happened at Kohl’s, I’m surprised he wasn’t offered 50% off his scentence or a coupon good for 10 years off his next shoplifting trip.

  38. areaman says:

    This almost makes the NY store that ‘fines’ people $400 for shoplifting in exchange for not calling the cops sound like a pretty good deal now. A better deal would be if one just paid for the grapes or whatever is deemed so important.

    I understand this guy really got busted for a car chase and is really an asshole.

    • CookiePuss says:

      If the merchandise had a value over $500 or it was his 3rd shoplifting conviction of any value it would have been a felony even without the felony eluding. With his prior record he could have gotten life in prison for shoplifting a pack of gum if it was his 3rd shoplifting offense.

  39. Geekybiker says:

    They really shouldn’t give him life in prison. Too expensive. Banishment it more appropriate. Revoke citizenship and a one way ticket somewhere else.

  40. Berries_n_Brains_Cereal_is_Zombilicious says:

    Hmmm.. perhaps if that stupidly harsh law wasn’t in place he might not have endangered hundreds of people’s lives by recklessly speeding away. I’m sorry, but I’d be really pissed if some guy killed a member of my family because they were trying to avoid the inevitable. Criminal behavior cannot simply be shoved away. We’re at the point were we should be making more efforts to rehabilitate criminals instead of making them more dangerous.

  41. lawgirl502 says:

    When I saw the title of this posting, I immediately thought 8th Amendment violation, then I read it and saw that this habitual offender, with multiple felony arrests, is why they originally created 3 strikes laws. In CA the 3 strikes law has many errors in its text- it is not implemented the way it was intended. However, when these idiots don’t “get it”, what is the criminal justice system supposed to do? Catch 22