Think of the money we'll save!/sarc
Obviously, we have prison for a reason, and we would never do this, because the vast majority of those in prison are there because they are dangerous, and we don't want them around. They are supposed to be rehabilitated and learn their lesson, but in reality, they usually don't. The thing that usually stops a young hoodlum from continuing to commit crime is growing old.
However, in this case, my initial reaction is that the state has forfeited its right to incarcerate this defendant, who happened to be one of the few who turned his life around on a dime. When he was sentenced, he was a 23 year old kid who would have been out at 37, or maybe sooner if they get time off for good behavior in Missouri. He was available and never fled or hid, and they didn't put him in prison during all those 13 years. Now, he is 37, with a family and a life, and it would be cruel to force him to serve those 13 years NOW, having him in prison until age 50, separating from that life that he built while they failed to put him behind bars.
The penalty now would be something far harsher than the original sentence. You can't impose it on him now, to do so would be cruel. In my opinion.
In the case of the woman who escaped prison in Michigan, went to San Diego, changed her name and had a family, I think there is a distinction. Namely, that she escaped and hid. It was her fault, not the state's, that she did not finish out her sentence. If having a good life after escape allowed a person to avoid their sentence, then prisoners might as well escape at will and give it a go.
In that case, justice was served by forcing her back to Michigan, putting her in prison, but letting her out after a suitable interval had passed (I think they let her out after 6 months or a year, instead of making her serve out her entire sentence.) One factor making that just is that the laws she was in prison for had changed drastically. I think it was a small amount of marijuana she had, and she got a 20 year sentence that would today be a misdemeanor with no prison time.
“I guess we should not put anyone that has been convicted of a violent crime in prison for at least a decade. If they are not convicted of any serious crimes in that time they’re free to go.”
We do that all the time depending on the circumstances. It’s called probation. Probation for armed robbery isn’t typical, but it isn’t exactly rare either, happens quite a bit with young first time offenders.
Regardless of that, I don’t see any justification at all for sending a man with 4 kids, his own business, and an otherwise clean record back to prison on the taxpayer’s dime, because of a government clerical error. I’m good.
What would your just action be? This man never hid where he was. He never tried to keep from going to prison. The court just overlooked him. So he waited. And waited.
Now that they have discovered the oversight, he was arrested. But if he had served all of that term, he would be free now anyway.
So tell me, would justice be served if he now spent 13 years in prison? If so, please define what you believe to be the purpose of prison and what you believe justice consists of.