A Tale of Injustice: The Alabama Man Who Spend 36 Years in Prison for Stealing $50

Imagine a situation where a man spends 36 years in prison for a crime that seems so insignificant in light of his previous violent offenses. This is the unfortunate reality for Alvin Kennard, whose story has sparked debate and questions about the fairness of the legal system.

Background and Conviction

Alvin Kennard, a man from Alabama, pleaded guilty to three counts of felony burglary for breaking into a closed gas station. This crime, while serious, did not seem to warrant the significant time served. However, his conviction didn’t stand alone. Just a few years later, he was caught in a more serious offense.

In 2009, Kennard was involved in an armed robbery at a bakery. He stole $50.75 at knife-point. This crime, though minor in the grand scheme of things, carries significant weight in criminal law and the state’s habitual criminal statute.

Impact of the 4-Strikes Law

The 4-strikes law in Alabama was designed to be a strict measure against habitual offenders. It was particularly harsh, mandating long sentences for repeat offenders. However, the law was later changed, and it was not made retroactive. Despite this, 250 prisoners, including Kennard, are still serving sentences under the old law, often referred to as “the bitch” in criminal circles.

The Details of the Burglary and Armed Robbery

There are many details missing from the news reports about Kennard’s crime. The original break-in at the gas station, though a felony, didn’t necessarily warrant three counts. Did Kennard go back to the same location multiple times, engaging in additional crimes each time? If so, the DA could have charged him with one count per visit. This would have stacked the charges, resulting in a much more significant sentence.

The press often misrepresents these crimes, suggesting that Kennard made off with a large sum of money. The reality is far different. The $50.75 stolen in the bakery robbery was a fraction of what would have constituted a serious theft. At the time of the robbery, a similar crime involving a few cases of bread would have been a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Questions and Controversies

The question remains: why did Kennard plead to three counts of burglary for a single break-in? Was it because he had other unrelated burglaries that the lawyer tried to clean up with a plea deal? We don’t have the full details, but based on the limited information available, it seems highly improbable.

It’s clear that the sentence handed down to Kennard, at 36 years for a crime that appeared to be minor compared to his past offenses, is excessively harsh and unfair. The 4-strikes law may have been well-intentioned, but its application in this case is clearly problematic.

Conclusion: Justice and Injustice

The Alvin Kennard case brings to light the harsh realities of the 4-strikes law and its retroactive application. It raises critical questions about the justice system and the fairness of sentences handed down for minor crimes. As we continue to debate this issue, it’s essential to consider whether such laws do more harm than good and whether they may be overturned to ensure that sentences are proportional to the crimes committed.

Ultimately, the case of Alvin Kennard serves as a call to reflect on the balance between public safety and individual rights, and to ensure that our legal system is just and fair for all.