An essay on Cornelious Anderson: Should he go to jail?

Published under category: Writing Ideas | 2015-02-21 21:39:45 UTC

Context: Criminal justice system

It has always been ground of law that one is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, this was achieved: Anderson was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and convicted, but the mistake that was committed was that he was never assigned to any Jail. Argument for him being jailed would have grounds, to send him to prison now since the instructions were that he waits to be assigned a prison. It took thirteen years for the authority to assign him a prison. Arguments against Anderson being jailed would be that the sentence stipulated that he serves for thirteen years in prison and he has waited for the court to assign him a prison for all that time but they failed to do so within the stipulated time. Now the question is why and what time would he be serving if they locked him up now? The paper will consider these lines of arguments considering all the possible scenarios presented. Thirteen years ago a man by the name Cornalious Anderson was found guilty, and sentenced to serve for thirteen years behind bars but a prison was not assigned to him. The directive of the court had been that Anderson goes home and waits for the instructions to report to prison. Did Anderson from that day on pay his debt to society for the crime he did? Did he clear his name as a convict? Did he at any time in his thirteen years write to the courts inquiring about where he would serve his sentence? To all accounts, he did not. He was still a convicted criminal waiting to be given an appropriate directive as to where he would serve his sentence. Therefore, it took the court thirteen years to find the appropriate prison to send him. Following the direction of the court, he should go to prison. The purpose of going to prison would have been to ensure that he changes his behavior. It is a corrections facility and in this case, Anderson had not refused to comply with the directives of the courts. In fact, in more than one occasion, he had asked his lawyer about his jail term. He was a law abiding citizen during this period, and at no point did he change his identity or conceal where he was staying, so he was no fugitive. He has changed his life, gotten married started a honest business, and even opened different business. It can be argued that Anderson being a taxpayer who is not a criminal as per his recent behaviors is much more beneficial outside the prison than behind bars. According to the new identity of Anderson, he should not go to prison. The courts violated Anderson’s rights. He was waiting for a directive from the court, which had been delayed. He should sue the department of correction for failing to assign him a prison in good time and for slander for having made him be handcuffed in front of his three-year-old daughter. He is a law-abiding citizen who has not broken any other law apart from speeding tickets that are not worth being convicted. So Anderson has grounds for appeal and that the case related to him was judged on grounds of letting the convict go free. The system has failed an innocent man and in the process has put his family through much hardship. It is legal that Anderson should have been jailed, but the argument should have been made thirteen years ago not now. He stands to lose than to gain from being sent to prison, though it is the most legal way the issue should be handled. ORDER PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER