T1B

... never told to report to prison

Seems like that's not quite true.

His sentence has by-passed the "statute of limitations" so to speak...
Considering the circumstances, I'd place him on parole.
Save taxpayer money, while perp is paying his own taxes.

88 wrote:Now he's fighting for release, saying authorities missed their chance to incarcerate him.

Nope. You did the crime. You do the time.

"The real tragedy here is that one aspect of prison is the idea of rehabilitation," Joy said. "Here we have somebody who has led a perfect life for 13 years. He did everything right. So he doesn't need rehabilitation."

What a crock of shit. Rehabilitation is a personal commitment. The purpose of incarceration is punishment for criminal offenses and armed robbery is not a trivial offense. You can't let anybody skate on that one.

IMO, the four major violent crimes should be capital crimes anyway.

Cornhusker wrote:His sentence has by-passed the "statute of limitations" so to speak...

WRONG. He was sentenced to 13 years. This is comparable to an escape.

What kind of idiot allows someone convicted of armed robbery to "report to prison?"

88 wrote:And people get paroled frequently just to make room for someone else who is more dangerous to society.

Well, it's a good thing they finally got this menace off the streets. He was probly gonna pop a few folks on his way to work, after serving his daughter breakfast.

No, that point is obviously way too complicated for me to understand. Maybe you can explain in greater detail with more emphasis on being condescending.

BTW - dude kinda looks like Deshaun Thomas.

Screw_Michigan wrote:What kind of idiot allows someone convicted of armed robbery to "report to prison?"

Some fat, stupid union slob too fucking lazy to give a fuck about doing his job.

There are 3 basic reasons for incarceration: protect society from dangerous individuals, rehabilitate inmates so that upon release they can be contributing & non-harmful members of society, and to punish those who commit crimes - make them "pay" for what they did, and serve as a deterrent to future bad behavior.

88 wrote:I think he should be in prison, paying his dues.

So you're focusing on punishment as the reason he should be locked up. If we examine the word pay in its most literal sense, there must be at least two parties involved - the payor and the payee. There also must be consideration (to use contractual language) - something of value must be paid by the payor to the payee. When dealing with incarceration, the payor is the convict, the payee is society, and the consideration is time. But is time really of value to the payee (society) if all the inmate does is sit in his cell all day or otherwise do nothing that provides any benefit to society? If I'm expecting payment from a payor and all I get is a bunch of wasted time with which I can do nothing, I'd feel gypped. For society to get any benefit from the time he owes, I'd prefer he do something with that time that provides a tangible benefit - some sort of community service that otherwise might have to be paid for out of tax dollars. Since he's also now making money, I'd have him pay restitution to the victims (including society as a whole) of the armed robbery he committed, including a fine, penalties, interest, and "pain & suffering" resulting from the trauma of being robbed at gunpoint.

Locking him up deprives society of the benefits he has shown to be providing since his conviction by perhaps eliminating jobs that his businesses may be providing, possibly putting his family on the dole since they now may not have a source of income, and reducing the amount of tax revenue collected since he won't be paying any while he's locked up, not to mention the cost of his incarceration which will be paid by taxpayers. That makes him a burden to society rather than a benefit, so I'm not sure what good the payee is getting from this arrangement.

Dude doesn't seem to be in need of rehabilitation at this point, nor does society need protection from him any longer, so those two elements of incarceration seem to be inapplicable now.

the notion that you can commit an armed robbery and not do any time if you should be law abiding after the offense, seems a bit warped.

Can't argue with that. The government's fuck up in not having him report to prison in a timely manner has created quite the dilemma.

What if the crime had been murder, or rape? Does that make it different? Why should this guy get a pass but other saps in the same circumstance have to ride out their time? I don't get it.

Among the flaws in my stance are that it essentially allows him to get away with a crime either unpunished or underpunished, and it can't be applied universally - if the crime were rape or murder instead of robbery, I'd have a different opinion. Robbery is essentially (though not solely) a crime of property that can be repaid. Rape & murder are not, so time (or execution) is about the only payment society can exact from the perp.

mvscal wrote:You did the crime. You do the time.

That's the basic mantra of society regarding the commission of crime and is why he is now being ordered to start doing the time. Do you agree with the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied"? If so, the 13-yr delay pretty much assures that justice (for both the perp and society) has already been denied. If it's already been denied, what justice is being served by locking him up now?

Smackie Chan wrote:

mvscal wrote:You did the crime. You do the time.

That's the basic mantra of society regarding the commission of crime and is why he is now being ordered to start doing the time. Do you agree with the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied"? If so, the 13-yr delay pretty much assures that justice (for both the perp and society) has already been denied. If it's already been denied, what justice is being served by locking him up now?

No, I don't accept that. A court of law determined that Anderson owes the state of Missouri 13 years of his life for the crime of armed robbery. This is not a library fine. That he has been a law abiding citizen for the last 13 years is irrelevant. That is what everyone is supposed to be doing.

I assume the Governor is free to commute or partially commute the sentence at his discretion. That would be the only legal avenue open to Anderson at this time.

88 wrote:
Here is one of the reasons why. Let's say a dude who rarely ever drinks any alcohol gets carried away at a wedding reception and makes an unquestionably stupid decision to attempt to drive home. While driving, he goes left of center and kills a car load of children. He is convicted of violating some criminal statute (aggravated vehicular homicide or something of that nature) and is sentenced to 20 years in prison. Now, aside from this one unbelievably horrible fuck up, this guy has been a model citizen for his entire lifetime. He has a wife, kids, a job paying taxes etc. Why do we plunk him into prison for 20 years? Just like the armed robber in this scenario, he is not a threat to society and does not need to be rehabilitated. Is punishment enough? Perhaps we send him to prison to deter others. I don't know the answers, to be honest. But we have laws and the law says that 20 years is what he should get for that evening of stupidity.

Hell yeah the murderer in that example should serve time. How does one replace the lives he took? He made the decision to drive after drinking and has to pay for that choice.

mvscal wrote:Some fat, stupid union slob too fucking lazy to give a fuck about doing his job.

Jurists are unionized? News to me.

From the article:
Instead, he's relying on case law. The last time anything like this happened in Missouri was 1912. In that case, the convicted man was set free, Megaro said.

It would be interesting to find out the facts of this 1912 case.

The only other comment I have is, strange facts make shitty law.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

mvscal wrote:Some fat, stupid union slob too fucking lazy to give a fuck about doing his job.

Jurists are unionized? News to me.

I'm pretty sure he is talking about the dept of corrections.

88 wrote:You actually identified four reasons for incarceration, namely to: (1) protect society from criminals; (2) rehabilitate criminals so that they can be reintroduced into society; (3) punish criminals for their crimes; and (4) deter others from acting similarly.

I included deterrence as an offshoot or result of punishment, which should deter recidivism and prevent first-time offenses. But I'm ok with it being counted separately.

88 wrote:To me, if we are going to have laws and are going to enforce them equally and fairly to all, we have to put the armed robber in the joint until the law says he can get out. Maybe that is through clemency, or an early parole, or something else. But we can't have laws that apply to some, but not all.

I admitted my take was flawed, but I doubt there's a flawless solution available. Standing on the rule of law is a simple and elegant way to avoid debate on the issue. The law mandates punishment, there is no provision for time elapsed between sentencing and the beginning of serving one's time, nor is there a provision for addressing the government's fuck up, so we play by the rules as written. Case closed. But this case still seems to represent a perversion of why we incarcerate and the supposed benefits and safeguards it should provide a lawful society. I hope the Governor does commute a good portion of the sentence.

Smackie Chan wrote:...there is no provision for time elapsed between sentencing and the beginning of serving one's time, nor is there a provision for addressing the government's fuck up,

Do we really need "provisions" for something that might happen once every hundred or so years?

so we play by the rules as written. Case closed.

What other way is there to play it?

But this case still seems to represent a perversion of why we incarcerate and the supposed benefits and safeguards it should provide a lawful society. I hope the Governor does commute a good portion of the sentence.

That's your opinion. In my opinion, he got a gift. He got to live those 13 years as a free man when he should have been in prison. Violent offenders do not deserve any breaks.

This crime was violent in name only. Some dude got BKs $ took and maybe his feelings were bruised. The closest they came to perpetrating violence was to threaten it. No doubt it was stupid and felonious and dangerous but there was zero violence if the article is to be believed.

mvscal wrote:Do we really need "provisions" for something that might happen once every hundred or so years?

Probably not, and I never said we do.

mvscal wrote:

l wrote:so we play by the rules as written. Case closed.

What other way is there to play it?

Hence, "case closed."

In my opinion, he got a gift. He got to live those 13 years as a free man when he should have been in prison. Violent offenders do not deserve any breaks.

No argument there. He was very fortunate the government fucked up and got a break to which he had no entitlement. Had his punishment been served when it should have been, there would be no other victims besides dude who was robbed. Now there are at least four other "victims" - the wife & kids, plus any employees who may lose jobs as a result of the proprietor going to jail. None of those are justification for waiving the rules. Sure, he didn't have to get married, have kids, or start businesses, so blame can't really placed on the government for that. But it still seems perverse that enforcement of the law creates more victims rather than protecting society from future victimization.

Moving Sale wrote:This crime was violent in name only.

The crime was violent by definition. Or are you, for some reason, unfamiliar with the definition of violent crime?

You can call the crime whatever you want but there was no violence in the facts.

Okay, a question MS, as you seem to be using semantics here to say there is no violence in the facts.

The fact is that by definition, as mvscal has said, you don’t have to make physical contact with someone to be charged with a violence-related offence. Placing a person in fear that you will be violent towards them can also be an offence, including:

a)threatening to harm someone
b)being physically intimidating, such as standing over someone.

It doesn't matter whether you intend to harm the other person or not, as long as you intend them to believe that you will.

So while there may have been no physical violence, psychological violence is still a crime.

So the question is, how is there no violence in the facts, when the threat of violence still constitutes a crime?

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
So the question is, how is there no violence in the facts, when the threat of violence still constitutes a crime?

I don't know exactly what you are asking since you seem to be agreeing with me that there was no violence in their actions. As I said before you can call it a violent crime and there is no doubt that dude being robbed was scared but nobody got hit or bruised and there was no blood or hospital visit as far as I can see from the facts in the article or from the opinion posted by 88.

I run into this all the time in my work. There is a penal code in ca (2962) that talks about a crime being violent and what that might mean for someone's parole but if you look at the code it clearly says that threats of violence equate to actual violence. It's a trick that lawyers who write these codes use all the time.

The legislature can call it a violent crime if they want but they can't change the meaning of the word.
Does that help?

Just another denier coming out of the closet...nothing to see here.

Moving Sale wrote:... but if you look at the code it clearly says that threats of violence equate to actual violence.

No further questions. You may step down.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:... but if you look at the code it clearly says that threats of violence equate to actual violence.

No further questions. You may step down.

So you think the legislature can change the meaning of a word. Interesting.

He shouldn't get away scot free, however, it seems to me that the state has some sort of responsibility to carry out the sentence with some sort of expedience. Let him serve 6 months or so and parole him.

88 wrote:But from Smackie's value proposition, their ain't much that society gains by locking up a non-threatening taxpayer in that situation.

Society has a responsibility to punish criminal behavior especially violent criminal behavior.

88 wrote:But from Smackie's value proposition, their ain't much that society gains by locking up a non-threatening taxpayer in that situation.

I wrote:Rape & murder are not [property crimes], so time (or execution) is about the only payment society can exact from the perp.

I don't have a problem here; there is no way to repay what has been taken in these crimes, and even the service of time is not repayment. One other "benefit" of incarceration besides those already mentioned, even in the hypothetical case you cited, is the message to society, especially those most closely impacted by the crimes like surviving family members, that justice in some way must be meted out and that there are severe penalties, even for normally law-abiding citizens, when crimes, intentionally or not, are committed. But for that benefit to be fully realized, the punishment must be timely. There is some truth, though perhaps not absolutely, to justice delayed being justice denied.

88 wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Hell yeah the murderer in that example should serve time. How does one replace the lives he took? He made the decision to drive after drinking and has to pay for that choice.

No argument, here. But incarceration is not going to protect society from a menace in that situation, nor is there any reason to rehabilitate him. He is serving straight up punishment, and perhaps serving as a deterrent to others. I don't have a problem with it. But from Smackie's value proposition, their ain't much that society gains by locking up a non-threatening taxpayer in that situation.

Ask the families of the killed kids if the is threatening. His choices and actions made him a threat and he could certainly do it again. Many studies have shown that people turn to booze when sad or depressed. I would hope dude would feel some remorse about murdering kids. If so that puts him in a higher statistical category to make another poor choice. At least if he is locked up society is protected from him making another poor choice.

When you start putting people down for long prison terms for general intent crimes or crimes were the malice is not specifically intended you start to run into these quagmires. Does it really do anybody any good to put a person down for decades because of a DUI death? How about a death caused by a faulty car the company knew about or a speeder or a person distracted by their kids in the car or a drink they just spilled on their lap? It's a new world of jurisprudence and I think most people would agree that we are still working the kinks out of it.

Moving Sale wrote:I don't know exactly what you are asking since you seem to be agreeing with me that there was no violence in their actions.

Actually, I'm still in agreement with mvscal, though I see the point you're trying to make. The simple truth is, an act of violence can be committed without a physical action.

Per 18 U.S. Code § 16 - Crime of violence defined:

(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or

(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

By definition, as you can see, an act of violence is and can be defined by implied threat or intimidation. You're trying to pigeon-hole the word violence as being a physical action alone. Violence in action is not confined to physical force. You said it yourself and got called on it..."but if you look at the code it clearly says that threats of violence equate to actual violence." You refer to it as a legal "trick", yet is a legal code. Legal semantics and elliptical logic cannot, or at the very least, should not be applied to re-define what violence is or is not.

You are missing the point. I didn't get called on it when ofailurecal quoted the code I quoted. That is what I meant. The legislature can call an act violent but that is changing the meaning of a word and turning it into legalese. Hopefully you will agree that English should be used over legalese when ever possible when writing codes.

Smackie Chan wrote:Now there are at least four other "victims" - the wife & kids, plus any employees who may lose jobs as a result of the proprietor going to jail. None of those are justification for waiving the rules. Sure, he didn't have to get married, have kids, or start businesses, so blame can't really placed on the government for that. But it still seems perverse that enforcement of the law creates more victims rather than protecting society from future victimization.

exactly....I mean I fully understand and agree with "you do the crime, you do the time" especially when it comes to violent felonies.....it doesn't matter that he pulled a BB gun out, he was convicted of armed robbery and by definition, that is a violent felony....but the circumstances of this case are unique in that by incarcerating him, you've not only created a drain on taxpayer money by paying for the costs of locking him up, but have probably added his wife and kids to the welfare rolls, thus the citizens of Missouri are getting hit with a double whammy....I know that economics shouldn't figure into a case like this, but then again there is no case like this.....I'd think the governor would do himself a big favor (politically speaking) if he were to just commute the sentence.....

I'm not missing the point MS, nor am I using legalese. Since you're going by the strict English definition, let's refer to Merriam-Websters, as English as it gets.


Full Definition of VIOLENCE

1
a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2
: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3
a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm>
b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling
c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
4
: undue alteration

Note the highlighted 3.b..."vehement feeling or expression...an instance of action or feeling

The English meaning of the word violence can and is defined by simple expression or intent. I agree that English should be used over legalese. You now have your own defense of the word working against your perspective. As I said, I understand your point, it is simply incorrect.

A few points
A) try using your def in a sentence about a crime without harming anyone physically
B) try the best dictionary (Oxford) and you will not find that def but you will find how in the law section they have added " or intimidation by the exhibition of such force" which is my whole fucking point
C) I have not remembered to call you a vapid anything lately so I will now take this opportunity to cal you a vapid cunt

Moving Sale wrote: Does it really do anybody any good to put a person down for decades because of a DUI death?

Of course it does. You might start with the victims families.

Alrighty then, here is a sentence example as used by the Oxford dictionary.

"Each of the people who uses or threatens unlawful violence will be guilty of the offence."

Your point is quite clear, but here again, Oxford sweeps the argument out from under your tiny feet. The threat of violence is an act of violence and you are guilty of said act upon use of the threat. Case closed here sport. Move along and pay the fine of $2000 for committing the act of being obtuse and short sighted.

Since you can't use your def in a sentence like and asked and can only point to the law to back up your position when my position all along has been that the law has perverted the word you might want to back off on calling 'bode so quickly.

His family situation is irrelevant. Criminals leave families behind all the time.

Moving Sale wrote:Since you can't use your def in a sentence like and asked and can only point to the law to back up your position when my position all along has been that the law has perverted the word you might want to back off on calling 'bode so quickly.

You are confusing bodily injury with violence. Rape doesn't necessarily cause bodily injury. Would rape victim have to have her face smashed in for it to count as a violent crime?