- Oct 5, 2009
- 5,076
- 2,635
- 136
Kind of a weird couple of cases and honestly I don't have a dog in the fight other than curiousity.
So there are these 2 cases:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/05/judge-frees-robber-who-skipped-prison/8722645/
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/man-back-in-prison-for-90-years-after-court-error
In the former, a man robs a burger king as a 23 year old (no one harmed). He was released on bail and was supposed to serve time (13 years apparently). However, due to a clerical error actually spends no time in jail. The error is now caught but since the man is an upstanding citizen and happily married man with children, the judge waives the sentence.
The second case is as follows. A man robs a couple of video stores as a 20 year old (no one harmed). He is arrested and sentenced to 8 consecutive sentences totaling 90 years (seemed a little excessive to me on first look). However, due to a clerical error (the clerk thought the sentence was 8 simultaneous sentences not consecutive), he spends only 8 years in prison and is released on parole. He becomes an upstanding citizen, marries and has kids and stays out of trouble for 8 years. However, it is alleged that he was aware of the clerical error and did not call attention to it; if anything he retracted an appeal that was filed which would have called attention to it (remember this is just an allegation by the prosecution; he actually may not have known about it). Regardless, the error is caught and the man is now arrested and sent to prison to serve the remaining 82 years of his sentence.
So as a society, what are supposed to do with these clerical errors? The former man served no time, and is allowed to walk free. The latter man SERVED time and is not allowed to walk free. I'm not really sure I see the common guiding thread here.
And as a philosophical question, if you're in the position where you're released on a clerical error as above, do you have an obligation to report it? At first glance, it seems to violate our basic principle of a man has no obligation for self-incrimination as long as he is not committing a crime in the process.
Anyway, thoughts appreciated.
So there are these 2 cases:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/05/judge-frees-robber-who-skipped-prison/8722645/
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/man-back-in-prison-for-90-years-after-court-error
In the former, a man robs a burger king as a 23 year old (no one harmed). He was released on bail and was supposed to serve time (13 years apparently). However, due to a clerical error actually spends no time in jail. The error is now caught but since the man is an upstanding citizen and happily married man with children, the judge waives the sentence.
The second case is as follows. A man robs a couple of video stores as a 20 year old (no one harmed). He is arrested and sentenced to 8 consecutive sentences totaling 90 years (seemed a little excessive to me on first look). However, due to a clerical error (the clerk thought the sentence was 8 simultaneous sentences not consecutive), he spends only 8 years in prison and is released on parole. He becomes an upstanding citizen, marries and has kids and stays out of trouble for 8 years. However, it is alleged that he was aware of the clerical error and did not call attention to it; if anything he retracted an appeal that was filed which would have called attention to it (remember this is just an allegation by the prosecution; he actually may not have known about it). Regardless, the error is caught and the man is now arrested and sent to prison to serve the remaining 82 years of his sentence.
So as a society, what are supposed to do with these clerical errors? The former man served no time, and is allowed to walk free. The latter man SERVED time and is not allowed to walk free. I'm not really sure I see the common guiding thread here.
And as a philosophical question, if you're in the position where you're released on a clerical error as above, do you have an obligation to report it? At first glance, it seems to violate our basic principle of a man has no obligation for self-incrimination as long as he is not committing a crime in the process.
Anyway, thoughts appreciated.
Last edited: