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 do you think?
29
Let him be free
6
Force him to finish his 90 Years
5
Give him a shorter sentence of some sort
deletedabout 10 years
no they don't
deletedabout 10 years
98 years for robbery is really steep in the first place. People get out in under a decade for murder.
i for one think we should give people "freedom trial periods" where if they commit horrible stuff such as robbery and kidnappin' they should get a freedom trial period where they try being free for a while. if they succeed and act like a Cool Citizen, we shouldn't reprison them. but if they recidivate, then i guess what's the big loss haha
that doesn't make sense because they KNOW they're being watched which gives them more incentive to be better
if you do the crime, do the time
deletedabout 10 years
i for one think we should give people "freedom trial periods" where if they commit horrible stuff such as robbery and kidnappin' they should get a freedom trial period where they try being free for a while. if they succeed and act like a Cool Citizen, we shouldn't reprison them. but if they recidivate, then i guess what's the big loss haha
deletedabout 10 years
had this clerical error not occurred would any of you who wants him to be free think twice about his sentencing and the fact that he is still in jail?
probably not considering it would not have made the news :-)
why the hell is it 98 years for an armed robbery lmao
consecutive sentences plus this probably was a southern court
If you live in a country where the standard sentence for an armed robbery is 49 years, I feel bad for you man.
i guess you just don't know what multiple counts of robbery and kidnapping translates to in the crj system
deletedabout 10 years
you can't really say he shouldn't have to finish the 90 years if you can't contest the original ruling.
you can't really say he shouldn't have to finish the 90 years if you can't contest the original ruling.
you can't really say he shouldn't have to finish the 90 years if you can't contest the original ruling.
you can't really say he shouldn't have to finish the 90 years if you can't contest the original ruling.
you can't really say he shouldn't have to finish the 90 years if you can't contest the original ruling.
you can't really say he shouldn't have to finish the 90 years if you can't contest the original ruling.
you can't really say he shouldn't have to finish the 90 years if you can't contest the original ruling.
you can't really say he shouldn't have to finish the 90 years if you can't contest the original ruling.
you can't really say he shouldn't have to finish the 90 years if you can't contest the original ruling.
you can't really say he shouldn't have to finish the 90 years if you can't contest the original ruling.
you can't really say he shouldn't have to finish the 90 years if you can't contest the original ruling.
you can't really say he shouldn't have to finish the 90 years if you can't contest the original ruling.
had this clerical error not occurred would any of you who wants him to be free think twice about his sentencing and the fact that he is still in jail?
no because there would be no practical evidence that he was reformed at all.
however seeing that he is a productive and not destructive member of society, it shows that he is reformed. nonetheless he should go back to jail because if u did the crime, u do the time
8 years isn't an adequate sentence for someone who committed multiple armed robberies and the transportation of hostages (kidnapping, essentially) no matter the signs of reformation, the time served does not match the crime committed. 90 years is harsh, but 8 years is a slap on the wrist.
had this clerical error not occurred would any of you who wants him to be free think twice about his sentencing and the fact that he is still in jail?
no because there would be no practical evidence that he was reformed at all.
however seeing that he is a productive and not destructive member of society, it shows that he is reformed. nonetheless he should go back to jail because if u did the crime, u do the time
I think he should be free because he didn't do anything again, and they freed him plus he has a family now. Not like he's committed crimes after the fact or anything
I would let him free, but if you do that you should give to every jailed person the opportunity to show that you changed your life and that you wont do it an other way. Give it just to him is too discriminatory