Man sentenced to 13 years in prison never serves time

http://news.yahoo.com/armed-robber-never-told-report-prison-195146743.html

What do you guys think? Personally I think they missed their chance and instead of wasting tax payer money to send the guy to jail they should just realize he made a great change and is providing revenue to the state and fed by paying all his taxes.

 

Statute of limitations? He shouldn't have to serve time after the Statute of limitations runs out. It's not like he was hiding. They screwed up, now they're gonna screw up his life. He's obviously not a threat!

 

I say let him walk. If he had been in and out of prison during those 10 years and just causing problems, or was on the run and hiding from the cops, that'd be one thing but it sounds like he actually learned his lesson and turned his life around (which is sort of what the state would want to happen anyways, right?). Not that it means anything but I'd vote to let him go rather than waste a ton of money trying to prosecute him and even more on all the appeals. He lucked out, got a second chance and was smart enough to use it wisely, I say good for him.

 

Walk himself to prison. He knew he was convicted so he should man up and serve time.
Forgive and forget? I dont think so- how dare you all forget about the victims

 

He was told to await instructions so thats what he did. I'm also not forgetting about the victims but he seems to have turned himself around which is the point of rehab in prison anyways

 

I think that he should walk now. He did what he had to do but it never came up that he need to go to prison what he did was wrong yes but still now I just don't see a point and he wasn't hiding so there for he should be allowed to go onnwith his life.

 

I'm not sure statute if limitations apply post conviction.

Even some murders get little or no time why should he be different. On the other hand, as others have said, what about paying for his crime regardless of turning his life around? And just as important the victims.

So, by this logic I would make the argument upon sentencing, give me 13 years to see if I live right then decide if I still need jail time. He knew when he committed the crime it was wrong & it's still wrong today. IMO, without knowing more details, it's jail time for him.

 

Governor should commute his sentence. Clearly, prison will not help and rehabilitation is not required.

 

They had 13 years to give him instructions. That's the same length as what his sentence would have been. Seems like he turned his life around. Slap him with some community service, and send him on his way. He sounds like one who just needed to be scared to turn his life around. There are worse out there that need to be caught and put in the striped suits.

 

x2

 

Well said.

Also, to you people commenting 'what about the victims', the victim even spoke up and said he didn't think he should be sent to prison now, after all these years.

 

I don't know. He's in jail now. His lawyer told him to just wait that they'd get him someday. He knew it was coming... He was skating, he knew he was skating and now he wants off without penalty.

No slant to the article at all either. "Model citizen", really...my ass. Must be some low standards in the great state of Misery if that's a model citizen. I don't have a pot or armed robbery conviction on my record. What does that make the rest of us?

 

It said he turned into a model citizen..

 

for all the 'lock him up' folks in here, how about the cost of incarceration? isn't that a waste of tax dollars?

 

I read it. I believe, in most cases, future behavior can best be predicted by previous behavior. Not saying it's true in this case but, just because he hasn't been convicted since the armed robbery conviction (though the story doesn't spell that it out in those words) doesn't mean he's been a model citizen. Lots of crimes go unsolved.

He still knew he had to pay the price...someday. He knew it was coming. Why should today be different? Why shouldn't we give all convicted armed robbers the same faith?

And why wasn't he taken into custody upon conviction. I thought only the wealthy, politicians and celebrities got to "report" to prison later. I'd like to know the rest of the story.

 

IMO a bigger cost (though maybe not in $$$) is letting the criminals live freely among us. Besides that, do you think you'll see your tax burden change if this convicted armed inmate serves his time or not?

 

Have him pay restitution fees and send him on his way. If he has proved that he has turned his life around, why should we pay for him to be locked up in prison. I understand that if you do the crime, you should do the time.

 

How does one calculate that cost?

Is it the amount he stole? Is it the amount he stole plus any benefit that would have been gained had he not committed armed robbery? And how do we know that amount? Is it money he stole + (salaries of the polices, detectives, prosecutors, public defenders and anyone else that was paid regarding his case) + prorated cost of the buildings & vehicles ect used from birth to death for his crime + interest on all of it? Did he file taxes on the money he stole as earned income and if not, what are those fees? Will he pay punitive damages to those adversely affected?

I know that is over the top but, to me, being concerned about the cost of one convicted armed inmate in our prison system is equally over the top.

 

This is a great case of letter of the law and spirit of the law. What is the point of prison? To teach people a lesson and get them to behave once they are released. Clearly just the thought of prison was enough to get him to change is ways and become a productive member of society.

So you send him to prison, and a wife loses a husband, children lose a dad, an employer looses an employee and a tax paying citizen gets his life fucked by going to jail.

 

In this case there does not seem to be a threat from a 'criminal' living freely among us. I was not saying we should let all convicts go free. I am talking about this specific case. Why would we spend tax dollars to 'rehabilitate' a man who has a family and businesses and does not appear to be a threat to society? In fact, it looks like the case is being made that he's a benefit to society having pointed his life in right direction. I don't understand the inflexible thinking of 'he did the crime, he must do the time!'.