This guy, at 20, was convicted of two armed robberies and given a 98 year sentence, served 8 years and was released due to a clerical error, lived 6 years as a free man, got married and had kids, then was forced to finish the sentence.
There are arguments on both sides of this. Should he or should he not be forced to finish the sentence?
what im personally noticing is your lack of connection between such laws and morals
deletedabout 10 years
i think it'd be unfair to end his sentence after only serving ~6% of it. especially when taking into account mandatory minimum statutes that exist in virtually every state ever.
"U did something wrong now I take away your life lololol" <-- something a murderer might say
There's no injustice, theoretically everyone should be released if they're truely rehabilitated, we just can't check everyone that often. It was a happy accident that they made a clerical error with this guy and he happened to use it for good instead of evil. It's not injustice, it was just good luck.
everyone deserves a chance at rehabilitation but to say that "because y didn't get x's scenario, it would be unfair for x to get out of their long sentence", when x has proven they've rehabilitated is wrong and awfully unfair :(
deletedabout 10 years
not really. you're taking this out of the scope of what we know and you'd have to have specific information relating to his case to make this argument imho
comparing someone who wants harsh justice for murderers, rapists and child molesters to the actual rapists, murderers, and molesters---your argument is bad and does not make sense.
NOW I would like you to rationalize your willingness to leave those who don't get clerical errors with unequal injustice.
well i mean, i'm sure you have a softspot for pedophiles, seeing as you banned a user for calling someone out for being one so I guess you're really not the right person to be speaking to about strict punishment for child molestation.
seems like you have some malice, and desire to see certain people have extreme hardships inflicted on them. ironically it's extremely malicious people you harbor those feelings for.
If you're a murderer, rapist, or child molester--you can literally rot in a cold dark cell for the rest of your life without any sort of guilt or ''chance of reformation'' IMO.
a 98 year sentence would be bad for that because it's not harsh enough.
deletedabout 10 years
this isn't about rehabilitation. this is not about the criminal. this is about the courts vs. the power of privately owned prisons (though i don't recall if this was a private or government prison)
if I could believe there was a possibility this person needs to carry out the rest of his sentence for his good, and for the good of society, i'd agree it's a good idea, but that idea seems like nonsense to me.
The thing is--I'm not a criminal. And I have the basic understanding of ''what I am doing is illegal and if I get caught doing these illegal things whatever punishment I get is my own doing''.
You're still ignoring the point that it's INJUSTICE to the other convicts who may or may not be reformed but will not get this opportunity.
i don't personally agree with the warehousing complex that has infiltrated the correctional system, but having no information on his case, if it went to trial, and other such pertinent information, it's difficult to have a solid opinion on his ruling. based on what i've seen and read, it doesn't seem that bad, but again, little to no information.
