Clerical error kept man free for 13 years....until now

[Chris0nllyn]

A convicted criminal who spent 13 years as a free man because of a clerical error now faces the same amount of time in jail — after authorities discovered their boneheaded mistake more than a #decade later.

Missouri officials who stumbled upon the paperwork bungle — which showed felon Cornealious “Mike” Anderson as an inmate in state prison even though he never showed up there — want to undo the snafu by throwing the now-upstanding businessman behind bars for the next 13 years.

Anderson, 37, is now a married father of four, owns his own contracting business, coaches football and is a devoted churchgoer, according to his lawyer and family.

But when he was just 22, Anderson and a friend robbed a Burger King night manager at gunpoint in St. Louis. No one was hurt in the 1999 holdup, but Anderson was sentenced to 13 years.

He spent 10 months in jail before his family managed to cobble together $25,000 to secure his release as he filed a series of unsuccessful appeals, the Riverfront Times reported.

After the last judicial rejection, the young man, out on bond, waited for law enforcement to take him to prison.

But they never came.

http://nypost.com/2014/04/13/man-sent-to-jail-after-clerical-error-kept-him-free-for-13-years/


So, the underlying question here is this:
Is jail supposed to punish someone, or rehabilitate them into a productive member of society?

If the answer is the latter, should this guy go to jail and serve the original sentence?

 

[itsrequired]

http://nypost.com/2014/04/13/man-sent-to-jail-after-clerical-error-kept-him-free-for-13-years/


So, the underlying question here is this:
Is jail supposed to punish someone, or rehabilitate them into a productive member of society?

If the answer is the latter, should this guy go to jail and serve the original sentence?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both? Prision can attempt to rehabilitate through punishment. If it takes it takes, if not oh well. Too bad for this guy. He should have turned himself in, but still placing the blame on others. How does this lawyer know nobody was hurt? Just because there is no physical damage? So the fact that they robbed a man at gunpoint and made him fear for his life had not lingering effects on the victim? Can the lawyer prove that?

 

[MMDad]

Is jail supposed to punish someone, or rehabilitate them into a productive member of society?

If the answer is the latter, should this guy go to jail and serve the original sentence?

If jail was supposed to rehabilitate then we wouldn't have set times for sentences. You'd go to jail, and once you were rehabilitated you'd be released. It would be more like being committed and being released once your mental illness is under control.

It's also about deterrence. Most people think twice before acting stupidly and think "would it be worth it for me to risk prison for this?" If the threat of punishment was not there, more people would consider the crime to be worth the risk.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both? Prision can attempt to rehabilitate through punishment. If it takes it takes, if not oh well. Too bad for this guy. He should have turned himself in, but still placing the blame on others. How does this lawyer know nobody was hurt? Just because there is no physical damage? So the fact that they robbed a man at gunpoint and made him fear for his life had not lingering effects on the victim? Can the lawyer prove that?

You're right. It defintely doesn't have to be one or the other.

But if you acknowledge the underlying goal is to punish and rehabilitate, is that not what happened here?

He spent 10 months in jail, he built a house, built a family, pays taxes, coaches sports, etc. Did he not get punished and rehabed?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

If jail was supposed to rehabilitate then we wouldn't have set times for sentences. You'd go to jail, and once you were rehabilitated you'd be released. It would be more like being committed and being released once your mental illness is under control.

It's also about deterrence. Most people think twice before acting stupidly and think "would it be worth it for me to risk prison for this?" If the threat of punishment was not there, more people would consider the crime to be worth the risk.

There are set sentences that get dropped down because someone had good behavior behind bars. Isn't that essentially the same thing as the bolded part above?

People are committed to the 5th floor all the time. They get released when a doctor says the person is ok.

I agree deterence is what jail is supposed to be, but we all see the news reports around here. People getting out early, being relased on PR, etc. If sentences aren't upheld 99% of the time, is it much of a deterence?

 

[MMDad]

There are set sentences that get dropped down because someone had good behavior behind bars. Isn't that essentially the same thing as the bolded part above?

No, because it isn't based on when you are "rehabilitated." It is based on a set formula - you are sentenced, and you become eligible after X amount of time. You don't become eligible after you have proven yourself to be rehabilitated. Some people are rehabilitated before they are even sentenced, but some never will be rehabilitated. Should we lock up a drug addict forever if we know they will reoffend? Should we let a murderer go because they have been "rehabilitated?"

 

[itsrequired]

You're right. It defintely doesn't have to be one or the other.

But if you acknowledge the underlying goal is to punish and rehabilitate, is that not what happened here?

He spent 10 months in jail, he built a house, built a family, pays taxes, coaches sports, etc. Did he not get punished and rehabed?

I don't think he was punished enough. He put a gun in a guys face and took property which didn't belong to him. I would also suspect based on the sentence that this was not his first offense. I would also argue that he didn't get rehabed. He stayed out of jail knowing that he was supposed to be there. That in itself said he is shirking his responsibilities. Was he rehabed or was it just he didn't do anything so he wouldn't have to face his jail sentence!

 

[MMDad]

Was he rehabed or was it just he didn't do anything so he wouldn't have to face his jail sentence!

Or was he just more careful and didn't get caught again?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

No, because it isn't based on when you are "rehabilitated." It is based on a set formula - you are sentenced, and you become eligible after X amount of time. You don't become eligible after you have proven yourself to be rehabilitated. Some people are rehabilitated before they are even sentenced, but some never will be rehabilitated. Should we lock up a drug addict forever if we know they will reoffend? Should we let a murderer go because they have been "rehabilitated?"

First, we have to establish what "rehabilitated" means in the context of the argument. Does it mean they can just be a part of society again, or do they have to show they won't do what they were locked up for in the first place?

If someone is locked up for assault, and during their stint in jail, they don't assault anyone, are they rehabilitated? It's considered good behavior, and makes them eligible to get out early. If he did assault someone behind bars, they won't let him out on good behavior. Would that mean he isn't rehabilitated?

I think drug addiction is a medical issue, and not a legal one. Personally.

If that person can show they will be a productive member of society, and after they've spent a substantial time in jail, why not?



Personally, I don't know how I feel about this. He did spend some time in jail. He didn't change his name or try to evade police, he didn't move away, and obviously didn't have any run-ins with the law in 13 years. Of course that doesn't forgive him for what he did, but can we agree that this man's actions are exactly what we'd all like to see from people who committed a crime?

 

[TPD]

What a conundrum we have here. My 1st thought is - Wow - 13 years for a fast food restaurant robbery with no one killed? Then I not only think of all the money this guy saved the state of Missouri by not being jailed, buy by all of the money he contributed to the state coffers by being a productive citizen of society. The man has done his time by looking over his shoulder the past 13 years, wondering if or when law enforcement would catch up to him. I say leave the man be - there are bigger fish to fry! He learned his lesson - this may actually cause him to now be un-rehabilitated - asking himself - why did I even try for the last 13 years to make my life better when it will all be taken from me over the next 13 years I spend behind bars. Common sense needs to prevail here - similar to the situation we have in schools now with kids mentioning or depicting guns with pop tarts and having the book thrown at them. Most rules/laws are only guidelines...

 

[RPMDAD]

Agree with TPD 100%.

 

[GURPS]

What a conundrum we have here.

I say leave the man be - there are bigger fish to fry! He learned his lesson - this may actually cause him to now be un-rehabilitated - asking himself - why did I even try for the last 13 years to make my life better when it will all be taken from me over the next 13 years I spend behind bars.

Agree with TPD 100%.

seems like a failure on the part of due process, speedy trials and all that ... I am thinking he should have grounds for some sort of appeal - clemency from the Gov.

 

[itsrequired]

seems like a failure on the part of due process, speedy trials and all that ... I am thinking he should have grounds for some sort of appeal - clemency from the Gov.

He got a speedy trial. He appealed and lost. Now he got caught and is crying that he has to do his time. If he would have accepted responsibility and turned himself in, he would be done with his sentence and could get on with his life. He made the choice not to do that!

 

[Hijinx]

He got a speedy trial. He appealed and lost. Now he got caught and is crying that he has to do his time. If he would have accepted responsibility and turned himself in, he would be done with his sentence and could get on with his life. He made the choice not to do that!

Give him a year serving weekends in the County Jail and cut him loose.

Serving hard time in a prison will serve no purpose except to make a few dipsticks happy.

 

[itsrequired]

Give him a year serving weekends in the County Jail and cut him loose.

Serving hard time in a prison will serve no purpose except to make a few dipsticks happy.

Let me ask you, if it were your son or daughter whose face he stuck the gun before he stole their property, would you be a dipstick if you wanted him to serve more than a few weekends?

 

[Hijinx]

Let me ask you, if it were your son or daughter whose face he stuck the gun before he stole their property, would you be a dipstick if you wanted him to serve more than a few weekends?

I assume you speak for them. I haven't heard from them yet. Have you got their number so I can ask?

 

[itsrequired]

I assume you speak for them. I haven't heard from them yet. Have you got their number so I can ask?

I'm not speaking for anyone. YOU made a statement and I asked if you would feel the same if it were people who were close to you.

 

[PrchJrkr]

itsrequired has nothing...

IMO, he should be given 20 years unsupervised probation, with 13 years suspended.

From the article, I see no mention of where a gun was stuck in anyone's face. "At gun point" pretty much means a gun was displayed.

If it had been my son or daughter, I would fully forgive him, and invite him over for a beer in the rose garden.

itsrequired is a racist bigot.

 

[b23hqb]

Let me ask you, if it were your son or daughter whose face he stuck the gun before he stole their property, would you be a dipstick if you wanted him to serve more than a few weekends?

Sorry, turnkey. According to the report, dude tried to turn himself in with attorneys, but the screwed up system still rejected him. Twice. Two appeal processes, both screwed up by the system of vigilant justice - so sad, too bad.

He got off easy - yes. He apparently straightened himself and his life out - yes. No different than your peeps wrongfully arresting, prosecuting, and convicting innocents through our imperfect system (we are people, by the way).

He was one of the few that saw the wrongful ways of his life, and for the last decade got himself right. I have to give this one up to him, thanks to the inefficiency of the system.

Go back out on patrol, keeps safe, and keep the donuts to a minimum.

 

[itsrequired]

Sorry, turnkey. According to the report, dude tried to turn himself in with attorneys, but the screwed up system still rejected him. Twice. Two appeal processes, both screwed up by the system of vigilant justice - so sad, too bad.

I don't eat donuts, so no worries there. Obviously reading and trying to insult are not your strong points;

After the last judicial rejection, the young man, out on bond, waited for law enforcement to take him to prison.

From the article posted by the op. Do you have a different link?