What should happen to the man who didn't serve his prison sentence due to a clerical error?

[LAGC]

Here's a conundrum for ya:

In 1999, Cornealious “Mike” Anderson was convicted of armed robbery after taking money from a Burger King manager who was making a bank deposit. He was sentenced to 13 years in jail, but after he posted bond and went home during the appeals process, he was never forced to serve his sentence.

“He then waited and waited and waited for the Missouri Department of Corrections to give him a date to surrender and begin his serving his sentence,’’ Anderson’s attorney, Patrick Michael Megaro, told TODAY. “That day never came.”

“He got married, had children, opened a successful business, coached youth football, (and) joined a church group,’’ Magaro said in a report from NBC’s Joe Fryer. “Did everything that you would expect a normal person to do because in his mind, he believed that maybe the courts had changed their mind.”

However, just as his sentence would have ended last summer, authorities realized the apparent clerical error — and that Anderson had never served time. The father of four was arrested and currently sits behind bars, waiting for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster to respond on Tuesday to a petition from his attorney asking for his release. Koster declined comment to TODAY.

http://www.today.com/news/man-who-ne...ate-2D79532483

Man, that's a tough one. On one hand, it was a pretty violent crime, but it sounds like he's totally changed his ways and lived a completely honest life since.

I'm not sure what sending him to prison 14 years after the fact accomplishes. After all, it was the state that fucked up.

I'm just not sure what a prison sentence would prove at this point, other than taking a productive member of society out of circulation and costing taxpayers more money to house his sorry ass.

It's a pickle, no doubt about it.

[Hatedbysheeple]

Had he lead a different life than the image painted I would be all for throwing him in jail, but he supposedly did on his own what prison claims to do but never does and that is turn his life around. I don't really care about the church group, but what kind of business does he own is it legitimate , is he a father to four children or did father four children. Basically is he a hustling punk or did he man up and become a productive member of society. That is what would drive my decision, are we locking away a punk or forgiving a good man who was once a stupid kid.

[Kadmos]

Had he lead a different life than the image painted I would be all for throwing him in jail, but he supposedly did on his own what prison claims to do but never does and that is turn his life around. I don't really care about the church group, but what kind of business does he own is it legitimate , is he a father to four children or did father four children. Basically is he a hustling punk or did he man up and become a productive member of society. That is what would drive my decision, are we locking away a punk or forgiving a good man who was once a stupid kid.

Well said. Hopefully some judge will be able to look closely at this and come to an informed decision.

[l921428x]

you are right, it is a tough one.
I will watch this. problem is stories disappear from the media and are sometimes impossible to find.

[Focused Gunfire]

Save the cash, let him free.

[5.56NATO]

Had he lead a different life than the image painted I would be all for throwing him in jail, but he supposedly did on his own what prison claims to do but never does and that is turn his life around. I don't really care about the church group, but what kind of business does he own is it legitimate , is he a father to four children or did father four children. Basically is he a hustling punk or did he man up and become a productive member of society. That is what would drive my decision, are we locking away a punk or forgiving a good man who was once a stupid kid.

Agreed. Put him on probation or whatever, most of the folks who come out of prison go back soon enough not having learned anything. Also this guy didn't cost taxpayers millions.

[Richard Simmons]

The punishment should fit the crime but it should also serve a purpose. It doesn't say how old he is or was when he committed the crime and maybe it doesn't matter but, as noted by others he seems to have lead a lawful and contributing life since his initial misdeed so if it were up to me I would give him the benefit of the doubt and drop it. Under the circumstances I would like to see the Governor issue a pardon or in some other way cut him a break. He still committed the crime put IMHO the punishment no longer serves the purpose.

[Krupski]

Here's a conundrum for ya:



http://www.today.com/news/man-who-ne...ate-2D79532483

Man, that's a tough one. On one hand, it was a pretty violent crime, but it sounds like he's totally changed his ways and lived a completely honest life since.

I'm not sure what sending him to prison 14 years after the fact accomplishes. After all, it was the state that fucked up.

I'm just not sure what a prison sentence would prove at this point, other than taking a productive member of society out of circulation and costing taxpayers more money to house his sorry ass.

It's a pickle, no doubt about it.

Given that the idea of prison is to "rehabilitate" a criminal, and given that this guy led a law abiding life, I would say that he's proved he doesn't require "rehabilitation" and therefore should not do any time.

Nobody seems to care when the reverse happens (an innocent man in prison for years until something pops up and clears him).

My vote is let him be.

[El Jefe]

I've been following this since it happened here in Mizzou.

If it was my call, all things considered, I'd put him on 10 years probation with about 5 years of some sort of community service.

Taking him away now from his wife and kids is counterproductive. But, he can't just walk.

[stinker]

Here's a novel two step plan to solve the dilema...

1. Lay the guys life since conviction out to the guy he robbed all those years ago and don't sugar coat or embellish anything with legaleze BS. If the guy wants to meet him face to face, make it happen with no preconditions.

2. Let the guy he robbed decide.

[El Duce]

Here's a novel two step plan to solve the dilema...

1. Lay the guys life since conviction out to the guy he robbed all those years ago and don't sugar coat or embellish anything with legaleze BS. If the guy wants to meet him face to face, make it happen with no preconditions.

2. Let the guy he robbed decide.

I have read this story before (recently) and apparently the guy who he robbed said that he did not want the offender to go to prison.

My opinion, sounds like he has turned himself around. No criminal activity that we know of. So, let the man be free. But if he messes up again like that. Prison.

[was_peacemaker]

I've been following this since it happened here in Mizzou.

If it was my call, all things considered, I'd put him on 10 years probation with about 5 years of some sort of community service.

Taking him away now from his wife and kids is counterproductive. But, he can't just walk.

Yeah that sounds about right. From what he has done so far it sounds like he would be alright under those circumstances, and it would save the taxpayers money.