Armed Robber never told to report to Prison for 13yrs

All kidding aside, I think he should get the death penalty.

 

Motive is very important to investigations.

 

Find an example of white dood getting convicted of armed robbery (similar circumstances) and getting no jail time in the same time frame this guy was convicted (sentencing changes) and then you can say you have a point.

Otherwise you are just grandstanding.

 

Although I hope he gets a reduced sentence, I can't see a good argument for him getting a reduced sentence. Prison after all is meant as a punishment, and why stop at say 6 years, when it should be 13 years. I understand that he has turned his life around though, which is fantastic, and would mean the rehabilitation is unnecessary, but he should still be punished, have it on his record etc.

 

People get sentences reduced all the time for mitigating circumstances, good behavior, etc. Would his actions here not qualify?

 

I don't see how these two situations are analogous at all.

In one situation (yours) the individual was going to be punished more than he deserved. Clearly that's a mistake that needs to be fixed. In this one though, the individual isn't getting a punishment he didn't earn. Letting him off the hook is letting him get away with no punishment. Two totally different scenarios.

What do you think should happen if a paperwork error lets a convicted criminal out of prison before they are supposed to be let out? That's more akin to what is happening in this scenario.

 

In both cases, the government messed up. In both cases, I don't think the individual should have to pay the price for it. The government intended to take away the next 13 years of this guy's life back in 2000. The guy was supposed to lose 2000-2013 and then rebuild a life from there. Instead, the government screwed up and he ended up building a life - you can't then arbirtrarily decide to take away 2013-2026 from him because you screwed up.

Depends on the circumstances. If he was released for an hour, you re-arrest him and put him in jail - no harm, no foul. If you release him and let him build a new life for 5 years, then that's your fault - he shouldn't have to pay an additional price of having his new life taken away due to your mistake.

Basically, you always err on the side of the citizen over the government if (1) it's the government's fault and (2) there's any gray area.

 

Would you argue the same for murderers, child molesters, or Nazis?

 

Yes - the crime is irrelevant. The system is designed such that we are to err on the side of caution, universally. It's the reason for "any reasonable doubt" to find guilt and for allowing a 100% certain criminal to get off based on a technicality. We expect our government to dot the i's and cross the t's before taking someone's freedom away. If they screw up, the criminal goes free - it sucks, but the solution for the government is simple: don't screw up.

 

A rich man steals millions in finance and never gets charged with a crime.

 

I hope the guy walks for time served... the last 9 months or so.

Anything else would be vindictive and destructive. We should THANK HIM for not costing us the money that 13 years of incarceration would cost the taxpayers.

 

Getting him off the hook is the bigger screw up.
Let the long arm (and memory) of the law take its course.

 

I agree with you, but you have too much expectation and confidence in the government.

 

Actually, I think his statement showed the appropriate lack of confidence in government. Lack of confidence in government is the reason that the burden of proof is "beyond" a reasonable doubt and also the reason that this guy should be given at least some reprieve since it was the government's mistake, not his.

 

This.

 

No. Once you're convicted of the crime it can be enforced indefinitely.

His lawyer should try to make a due process argument of some sort.



Here's the "This American Life" episode on this:
http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/518/except-for-that-one-thing

 

No........

 

I think one could consider it. The rationale is kind of similar, isn't it?

 

That's a scary precedence. This man is an exeption to the rule. Most criminals become criminals for life.

 

Give every person convicted of armed robbery 13 years on their own in the real world to see if they can self-rehabilitate before determining whether they should be imprisoned.