I think it’s instructive to look at this from the standpoint of the purpose of incarceration in the first place, which is (or should be) deterrence and rehabilitation. Jailing the man at this point serves neither of those purposes. The only purpose it could possibly serve is the unstated and irrational one of vengeance for transgressing against society. Although to be fair what is really happening here is just plodding bureaucracy plodding along and being stupid, as bureaucracy almost always is.
That all seems pretty straightforward. I’m more interested in the larger story here. The more interesting question to me is what would happen if such outcomes were institutionalized in the form of, say, more lenient sentences or judiciously granted suspended sentences for certain categories of relatively non-violent crimes. And conversely, whether this guy would have been so well rehabilitated had the system actually worked as it was intended to, wherein he was jailed for a long period, and came to know and associate with other criminals and built up a gradual resentment against society. Which then begs the question of just how productive it is to have the highest rate of incarceration in the industrialized world and some of the most severe sentencing regimes. If the purpose of the justice system is vengeance and hellfire, then it’s working out great. If the purpose is crime prevention, it’s not working particularly well.
Well, let’s see:
[ul]
[li]It’s 2014.[/li][li]It’s Missouri.[/li][li]He’s black.[/li][/ul]
Jail him for thirteen years. State won’t admit the state screwed up.
Case closed.
Next!
Seriously, let him go. Shodan’s idea is best.
This is also a good point. There are plenty of disturbing stories out there about the militarization of police forces and the damage the trend is causing.
On the one hand you could let him go and tell him that you are going to be calling him to report to prison in the near future to serve out his 13 year sentence. Then throw away the file.
On the other hand, he is black so we are probably going to bury him under the prison.
He needs to reimburse the owner for the cost of what he stole, plus interest, assuming it wasn’t returned at the time of his arrest, and he needs to pay for the clerk’s therapy.
Also, he shouldn’t be pardoned. His sentence could be commuted to a weekend in jail, or a week on house arrest, or even going to bed without supper, but the felony should remain on his record. He shouldn’t get his record expunged (which is essentially what a pardon does), as a way of keeping him out of prison.
It must have dawned on him at some point in those 13 years that someone goofed. I know it wasn’t his job to call this to someone’s attention, but I wonder if he ever thought about doing so?
My reason is that he shouldn’t get off scott-free.
Now, when I posted that I was in a hurry and just scanned the article. I didn’t realize that he has been locked up since last July. In light of that, I do agree with I think everyone else: let him go. He has served time. And he has rehabilitated himself in a way that would be a dream scenario for the state for any criminal.
I’m always shocked that people have no conception of why we have a criminal justice system and what vengeance actually is. Vengeance is when John killed Bob’s brother Al so Bob and his three other brothers kill John. Justice is when the law arrests John, tries him in an impartial proceeding, and produces an equitable result that is just to the criminal and the victims and thus good for society (because it removes street vengeance from the accepted norm.)
Equity under the law is not vengeance, and the criminal justice system doesn’t exist for deterrence and rehabilitation. Deterrence is a secondary effect and rehabilitation is only a 19th century concept.
I would think even the most ardent prosecutor could see the harm in jailing this man. Even 10 years probation - while probably harsh considering - would probably be acceptable to the man.
Probation can be fairly onerous, but at the same time with him having been incarcerated for almost a year it may actually be preferable he has his sentenced commuted to probation versus being released entirely. I’ve heard that many persons who are given special releases actually fare terribly on the outside because there are certain programs, resources, and other benefits you have access to while on probation/parole and none of those are available to someone who is released with no strings attached.
Like I had mentioned, I’m positive this lengthy period has destroyed his business and the news articles mention his family is in financial distress–any legal challenge they’ve been making has probably cost a fortune. This guy may need some level of assistance to get his life back in order.
The whole politics of our legal system are so diametrically opposed to what should be the goal… reduce crime and rehabilitate where necessary. Instead, the whole system in based on someone winning and someone losing so people like prosecutors and state officials are incented to ensure he serves time for their stats.
Well, I’m shocked that you’re shocked that someone disagrees with you. Surely that must happen from time to time?
It seems to me self-evident that the practical rational purpose of the criminal justice system is to reduce crime and promote a more peaceful society, and that you do this by creating consequences for criminal acts (deterrence) and wherever possible trying to persuade the offender to not re-offend (rehabilitation). The very name “corrections” implies that institutional function, although I admit that they often do a very poor job of it, which is actually my major point.
The salient fact here that inspired my earlier comments was that jurisdictions which appear to have a more “lenient” sentencing system than what is usually typical in the US – for example, more liberal use of suspended sentences and conditional or unconditional discharges and lighter sentences with a greater emphasis on rehabilitation – tend to have lower recidivism rates and generally lower crime rates. IOW, seeming to show that cases like the OP are more typical than atypical. Which leads one to believe that not only should he now not be jailed, but indeed to wonder whether the imposition of such a relatively severe sentence was justified by the circumstances in the first place (maybe it was, as I don’t know all the facts, but the absence of a sentence altogether appears in this case to have been beneficial to all concerned).
Given the fact that enlightened approaches to sentencing with a focus on rehabilitation actually work, any argument to the contrary can only be attributed to vengeance, or whatever other equivalent word one wants to use. Institutionalized vengeance is still vengeance. And no, rehabilitation isn’t a “19th century” concept, it’s a distinctly modern and pragmatic one that seems lacking in hang-em-high concepts of wrathful justice. And also, BTW, if you think this particular system offers “equality for all under the law” then you really must be living in a fantasy world.
I say free him. He would have gone to jail for the 13 years if they told him where to go, but they didn’t.
What’s interesting to me is the timing. Does anyone else think it’s odd that he was sentenced to 13 years and it was also 13 years later that they realized the mistake?
My guess is that even though the “put people into prison” bureaucracy didn’t have them on their list the “let people out of prison” bureaucracy did have him on theirs and that’s how they noticed.
Seems like an odd coincidence that they picked up on this right at the time he would have been released.
A 5am armed raid decked out in military gear would make me feel a fool. That’s what fosters distrust of law enforcement: senseless shows of excessive force.
I principle, I agree with Shodan: it’s pointless to make him serve a custodial sentence.
The problem here is the prosecutor likely doesn’t really have much discretion. The conviction and sentence are now what we’d call “final orders”, meaning even if the state agrees he shouldn’t be in prison (which it obviously doesn’t) there still has to be a hearing to modify, suspend or commute the sentence. I am not particularly familiar with Missouri criminal procedure but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if that process took over a year.
I’m pretty sure I know why the state is insisting on him being imprisoned, though: what if every convict asserted that “nobody ever told them” when to report to begin serving their custodial sentences?
The judge credited him with time served for the 4794 days between when he was convicted and when the SWAT team took him into custody. As a result he is a free man, though still with a conviction on his record.
The judge had praise for the defendant noting, “I believe continuing to incarcerate you serves no purpose, would be a waste of taxpayer dollars and punish a good man.”
