I say throw the book at him.
Just kidding. Free the man for Christ’s sake!
I just looked this up – it appears that the statute of limitations for prosecution of most felonies is three years in Missouri.
Now, I realize that he was convicted and the statute of limitations is made with other considerations in mind… but I think the moral principle would tend to indicate that if the state didn’t direct him to be incarcerated within three years of his conviction, then he should not be imprisoned now.
I like Shodan’s solution. (I know - I never thought I’d say something like that either!)
It’s elegant, logical and covers all the bases.
And therefore, no doubt, is legally impossible. 
Regards,
Shodan
I vote let him go as well.
But, what bothers me almost as much as the State’s complete ineptitude in jailing him, was that they sent a full SWAT raid to get him. Obviously, that means they did absolutely no research before starting the raid. That seems almost criminally negligent - if you don’t do reconnaissance, how can you be sure there isn’t 50 well armed men, a ton of explosives rigged to blow, or a hungry tiger behind the door?
If they DID do reconnaissance, then they look doubly stupid. They could have just arrested him leaving for work, or pulled him over in his car, or even just called and asked him to come in, rather than risk an armed confrontation with children in the house.
I guess, when you have a SWAT team, you need to give them something to do. Wearing their cool ninja gear, with balaclava, busting down doors with assault weapons ready, then tackling the guy while yelling makes the team feel like they are taking down a “scumbag”, I guess. (SDMB disclaimer - I don’t know if they did that in this case, but I wouldn’t be surprised.)
No doubt! 
Question for clarification here, mags (since there’s not much debate to be had at the moment): Why? Why should he “pay” in any way that he hasn’t already? Purely on principle? To send a consistent message?
I imagine the SWAT team briefing:
SWAT Commander: We have to pick up a fugitive, 13 years on the lam.
Officer: How’d he get on our radar?
C: Well , he was supposed to be in prison, serving 13 years, and when it came time to release him, the prison couldn’t find him.
O: So, they never noticed? in all this time? He escaped 13 years ago?
C: Well, he didn’t escape, actually. He never reported in.
O: And no one noticed? He must be one bad dude, able to escape notice all that time.
C: Well, no, he was stopped for traffic tickets several times. But he never showed in the system. Paid his tickets, too.
O: Then he’s been laying low all this time?
C: No, he got married, has a couple kids.
O: Supporting himself through crime?
C: No, he started several businesses.
O: How’d we track him down?
C: Through DMV, business and tax records. He has a house. He’s home every day at the same time.
O: So why are we going and not just sending a couple uniforms? Why do we need a full tactical assault?
C: You’re not a team player, are you?
He should make restitution to his victims. Then he should have a parole hearing as though he had been serving his sentence since immediately after his conviction (unless his sentence has run). He should be allowed to present character witnesses to attest to his lack of post-conviction criminal activity, and the DA should take a position on “release,” as though he had been locked up the whole time. If it is determined that his post-conviction life meets the criteria for parole, then he should be released on parole until the end of his sentence.
He should get a pass on anything he did post-conviction that would be illegal for someone on parole or furlough, up to the point the error was discovered, because that’s just too much red tape, unless he was specifically warned not to do them, in which case, he should either get a fine, or have some more time tacked on to his parole. I mean things like drinking alcohol, voting or possessing a firearm. He shouldn’t be “violated” for those things.
Submitted all IMHO.
If, as has already been said, we have an accurate summary.
One thing I wonder is whether he lives in a 3-strike state. If so, there may be no judicial discretion available; his only recourse would be a pardon from the governor, or possibly some kind of house arrest, unless the 3-strikes law specifically forbids house arrest.
What do you feel should be appropriate restitution in this case?
I heard this story on NPR a while back. Here’s the part where they talk to the victim of the robbery. I don’t know enough to form any concrete argument, but it seems to me he should be let go, and some sort of restitution set up for the victim if such a thing is possible. I don’t know how or what.
in criminal cases, “restitution” usually means returning the value of what was stolen or reimbursing costs associated with the crime ( repairs to a car or medical/therapy costs)
He shouldn't be incarcerated at this point. Probably not even put under supervision - there's no point to supervising someone who seems to be rehabilitated. However, this is all based on fact that he was told to wait for instructions- if he was given the instructions and never showed up, or absconded from a work crew, or actually escaped my opinion would be very different.
Many people forget the original reason for a justice system actually isn’t to protect the public or to rehabilitate criminals, it is to allow a neutral arbiter to determine an equitable means of making things right. It is to replace vendettas and familial blood feuds that tend to exist in human societies historically prior to the laying down of established laws and courts; and in societies with weak governments such systems still predominate.
From a societal protection perspective and a rehabilitation perspective there are no issues with this guy. But, he has still not made right the wrong he had previously committed.
If this arrest had just happened, my inclination would be:
-
Set him free, but require him to make restitution to the owner of the Burger King if the money stolen 13 years ago had not been recovered.
-
Require him to do some reasonable amount of community service proportionate to the length of his original prison term. Maybe 120 hours per year of sentence for 1560 total hours of community service. That’s a lot of hours (compare to 2080 hours in a standard work-year), so I’d allow him to do them over say, a 5 year stretch.
However at this point he’s actually been serving his prison sentence since last July, and his family has gone through financial distress and most likely due to the legal fees he’s presumably paid fighting this and the fact he will almost certainly have to start over from scratch with his contracting business I would not require the above. Instead, I’d say the State should release him immediately with respect to some greater concept of justice.
The State made a clerical error in this guy’s case, and it allowed him to build up a life for himself, have a family and start a successful business. While that doesn’t pay for his crime, it did create a situation the State should have taken into consideration when discovering such a profound clerical error on its part–something the news is saying has no comparison in Missouri law since 1912 which was the last time such a long lapse in discovering someone wasn’t serving their sentence occurred. In 1912 the man who was re-arrested was eventually set free, and I think that demonstrates good faith. I think this is a case ripe for the Governor to commute his sentence out of respect for the fact that the State didn’t properly given him any consideration after discovering a massive error on their part.
If this was last July, I’d advocate for him serving the community service I outlined above.
Not only is there no point to this guy being in jail, it’s counterproductive. It’s costing the state a lot of money just to incarcerate him, setting aside the additional costs of defending their decisions (and the cost of sending in the SWAT team instead of a couple of uniforms). Plus the emotional and financial havoc put on his family.
Restitution would be fine if it was ordered at the time of his conviction. Throwing it in now 13 years later isn’t right. If the victim was not compensated then it is another mistake made by the state for not ordering restitution in the first place. If there is fault here it lies with the state and not this man.
Yes, at this point the state is just wasting money and time. Turning a productive citizen who has raised a family into a liability. It goes beyond stupid to Fucking Stupid.
Waste of time. A reasonable amount of community service would be just fine in this situation.
“KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?”
I think he can safely answer in the affirmative. Let him go.
+1
Well, maybe. But somewhere in the back of this guy’s mind must have been the awareness that this situation existed. He must have known that if he got arrested for anything, the likely result would be the discovery of this unresolved sentence. It would be unfortunate for everyone is he was pardoned and that led him to drift back into a life a of crime.