Joined: 04 Dec 2008 Posts: 1454 Location: East Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:52 pm Post subject: Armed robber was never told to report to prison
Quote:
After he was convicted of armed robbery in 2000, Cornealious Anderson was sentenced to 13 years behind bars and told to await instructions on when and where to report to prison. But those instructions never came.
So Anderson didn't report. He spent the next 13 years turning his life around — getting married, raising three kids, learning a trade. He made no effort to conceal his identity or whereabouts. Anderson paid taxes and traffic tickets, renewed his driver's license and registered his businesses.
Armed robbery? Don't the jail system have you in with no bond for that charge? _________________ (❍ᴥ❍ʋ) ʕʘᴥʘʔ (⌐ ͡■ ͜ʖ ͡■) (┛◉Д◉)┛( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ༼;´༎ຶ ༎ຶ༽
Why jail him now? Just waste of money. He is a productive member of society. Jailing him now will destroy that productivity and his family with domino effect. If someone died or hurt etc different story. _________________ The journey to 17 begins...
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 Posts: 20351 Location: Are you a bad enough dude to read my posts?
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:47 am Post subject:
I think the statute of limitations on bank robbery is 5 years, but that's typically a different situation. They apply that when they look back on old crimes and discover someone involved in the case, then prosecute them if it's within that time frame.
This? I mean, he was convicted, but after 13 years and there's no response from the court, can you really lock him up now?
The sad thing is that the court's error ends up magnifying his original sentence into something far more brutal. Creating a life for yourself for 13 years, then an abrupt arrest and sentencing to follow? Brutal.
Putting him in jail now doesn't do any good for anyone. Removes a productive member of society, destroys his family, and costs the state money. Just let it go.
Neither. They are a political and psychological instrument to make everyone outside the prison belive that his world is safe and in order.
People in the US need this more than anybody else - that's why there are so many prisons compared to other countries.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52652 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:35 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
He needs to do some time. It was armed robbery, after all. But shortening the sentence would be the right thing to do.
I get that you're a lawyer, so your affinity for the law is going to get in the way of looking at things practically and reasonably.
The ideal goal of sending this guy to prison in the first place would be that he learns the error of his ways and becomes a functioning part of productive society. That has been achieved in this case
Advocating that the clock be turned back so that the judicial system can incarcerate a decent man long after he's reformed himself (which is the point in the first place) because of clerical screws up in the system is ridiculous. There is nothing to be gained other than this archaic notion that punishment trumps all.
The judicial system can't bring back the lives and years lost to the wrongly convicted. So in this case, it is only proper that the system realize that they make it a point to not compound a mistake like this by ruining someone's life.
He needs to do some time. It was armed robbery, after all. But shortening the sentence would be the right thing to do.
I get that you're a lawyer, so your affinity for the law is going to get in the way of looking at things practically and reasonably.
The ideal goal of sending this guy to prison in the first place would be that he learns the error of his ways and becomes a functioning part of productive society. That has been achieved in this case
Advocating that the clock be turned back so that the judicial system can incarcerate a decent man long after he's reformed himself (which is the point in the first place) because of clerical screws up in the system is ridiculous. There is nothing to be gained other than this archaic notion that punishment trumps all.
The judicial system can't bring back the lives and years lost to the wrongly convicted. So in this case, it is only proper that the system realize that they make it a point to not compound a mistake like this by ruining someone's life.
And it was the fault of the government that he didn't go in. It's just cruel to do it now that he's reformed. I would understand if he killed or maimed somebody because that's irreparable damage. Part of pouring someone away at that point is for retribution. But no good can come from imprisoning him now. Though a lot of bad can come from it.
it didn't matter whether he turned his life around or not, it's the same outcome.
It did matter. A human being improved himself after a life of crime.
What is it worth, when a nobody like "Cornealious Anderson" can demonstrate that he's been rehabilitated, and still can't escape the system? What's the reward? A pat on the head from Internet comments sections, and a few TV appearances?
Meanwhile, I'll continue reading headline after headline of exploitative scum in entertainment, finance, government, and other successful facets of society and civilization, who rarely see the inside of a jail cell. _________________ -Avenue of the Champions- -RIP Dr Buss- #824
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35812 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 2:08 am Post subject:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
He needs to do some time. It was armed robbery, after all. But shortening the sentence would be the right thing to do.
I get that you're a lawyer, so your affinity for the law is going to get in the way of looking at things practically and reasonably.
The ideal goal of sending this guy to prison in the first place would be that he learns the error of his ways and becomes a functioning part of productive society. That has been achieved in this case
Advocating that the clock be turned back so that the judicial system can incarcerate a decent man long after he's reformed himself (which is the point in the first place) because of clerical screws up in the system is ridiculous. There is nothing to be gained other than this archaic notion that punishment trumps all.
The judicial system can't bring back the lives and years lost to the wrongly convicted. So in this case, it is only proper that the system realize that they make it a point to not compound a mistake like this by ruining someone's life.
Slightly off-topic question here-- But why is it that someone who commits manslaughter while driving drunk receives a much harsher punishment than someone who just commits a regular DUI? If the point is to rehab people, then doesn't it make sense to punish on the intent and not the outcome?
Someone who commits manslaughter while drunk is irresponsible, but are they really more of a threat to society than someone who commits a regular DUI? Much of it is just luck. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
He needs to do some time. It was armed robbery, after all. But shortening the sentence would be the right thing to do.
I get that you're a lawyer, so your affinity for the law is going to get in the way of looking at things practically and reasonably.
The ideal goal of sending this guy to prison in the first place would be that he learns the error of his ways and becomes a functioning part of productive society. That has been achieved in this case
Advocating that the clock be turned back so that the judicial system can incarcerate a decent man long after he's reformed himself (which is the point in the first place) because of clerical screws up in the system is ridiculous. There is nothing to be gained other than this archaic notion that punishment trumps all.
The judicial system can't bring back the lives and years lost to the wrongly convicted. So in this case, it is only proper that the system realize that they make it a point to not compound a mistake like this by ruining someone's life.
Slightly off-topic question here-- But why is it that someone who commits manslaughter while driving drunk receives a much harsher punishment than someone who just commits a regular DUI? If the point is to rehab people, then doesn't it make sense to punish on the intent and not the outcome?
Someone who commits manslaughter while drunk is irresponsible, but are they really more of a threat to society than someone who commits a regular DUI? Much of it is just luck.
Or cut off your hand when convicted of stealing. Or just execute someone for any crime regardless. Punishment should fit the crime and people with DUI some of them do change.
Case by case basis, but no one was hurt and he was using a BB gun instead if a real weapon. He never tried to flee etc. his case is unique. The key thing is model citizen and have family. That's the goal of rehabilitation. Maybe getting a second chance in life turned it all around.
Going to prison now will destroy everything including his family. What's the point in that? Justice is not absolute _________________ The journey to 17 begins...
yep. trying to get revenge on a criminal just cause isnt the point. if someone is scared straight and you have proof of it. i mean if the guy has been on the straight path for 10 years. LEAVE HIM ALONE.
you should not have made that mistake. thats on you. its not on him to fix the system. he did the crime and was about to do the time. its on them to put him behind bars so he can do that time. its too late now. putting him in jail now i doing so to get cheap labor in that prison industrial complex. nothing more, nothing less. _________________ LAL4K3RS wrote: He(Kobe) is the white haired kung fu master that you realize is older than dirt but can still kick your arse when in a sitting position drinking a nice herbal tea.
This is a case that tests what side a person is on in the debate of rehabilitation vs punishment.
There are many folks who still perceive prison as "punishment" for a crime committed. Prison's were originally built in Pennsylvania by Quakers to rehabilitate prisoners rather than hang them for almost every single criminal offense. If we go by that rule, then this guy has turned the corner the last 13 years. _________________ I Recommend VLC Player: http://www.videolan.org/
He needs to do some time. It was armed robbery, after all. But shortening the sentence would be the right thing to do.
I get that you're a lawyer, so your affinity for the law is going to get in the way of looking at things practically and reasonably.
The ideal goal of sending this guy to prison in the first place would be that he learns the error of his ways and becomes a functioning part of productive society. That has been achieved in this case
Advocating that the clock be turned back so that the judicial system can incarcerate a decent man long after he's reformed himself (which is the point in the first place) because of clerical screws up in the system is ridiculous. There is nothing to be gained other than this archaic notion that punishment trumps all.
The judicial system can't bring back the lives and years lost to the wrongly convicted. So in this case, it is only proper that the system realize that they make it a point to not compound a mistake like this by ruining someone's life.
Slightly off-topic question here-- But why is it that someone who commits manslaughter while driving drunk receives a much harsher punishment than someone who just commits a regular DUI? If the point is to rehab people, then doesn't it make sense to punish on the intent and not the outcome?
Someone who commits manslaughter while drunk is irresponsible, but are they really more of a threat to society than someone who commits a regular DUI? Much of it is just luck.
If you're a school bus driver with a bus full of kids and you start speeding, running red lights, driving on the wrong side of the road just for fun, and then gets in to an accident and all the kids on the bus die, do you think he should only receive a punishment consistent with reckless driving, red light violation and speeding? His intent wasn't to harm the children, he just wanted to have a little fun that's all.
I do get your point, but I do believe there needs to be a careful balance there.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
