Good Example Of Anderson Should Go To Jail Argumentative Essay

Cornealious Anderson was arrested and subsequently convicted of the armed robbery of a fast food restaurant in 2000. Before July of 2012, he had served no time in prison for this offense in spite of the fact that he was sentenced to thirteen years in prison for the act. Anderson was supposed to receive instructions for when and where to report to prison but he did not. However, Anderson was still aware that he was supposed to report to prison to serve his sentence and did not take any steps to find out when and where he should begin serving his sentence. In July of 2012, the SWAT team came to Anderson’s home to arrest him and take him to prison to begin serving his sentence for the crime he committed thirteen years earlier. In this paper, I will argue that Anderson should go to prison for his criminal act.
Anderson was convicted of committing an armed robbery for which he was sentenced to thirteen years in prison. He was told that he would receive instructions on when and where to report to prison. Although Anderson did not receive these instructions, he was aware that he had been convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison. Therefore Anderson knew that he should receive instructions on when and where he should report to prison. If Anderson did not receive these instructions, he should have contacted the correctional facility to find out when and where to report so that he could begin serving his sentence as soon as possible.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial. In this instance Anderson did receive a trial that one can assume did not violate his Sixth Amendment rights. One can assume that this right is meant to be more of a protection for the innocent. It guarantees an accused person the right to a trial by a jury to hear the facts and determine his innocence or guilt and the appropriate punishment. The intent of this amendment can be seen as to protect innocent persons for having the threat of criminal prosecution hang over their heads. Furthermore, it protects these persons from witnesses and evidence in their favor from being lost. Therefore, if Anderson received his speedy trial, the jury found him guilty, and the sentenced him to thirteen years in prison, his rights under the Sixth Amendment were protected. As Anderson was aware that he had been convicted and sentenced to thirteen years, he should have contacted the correctional center if he did not want a delay in starting to serve his sentence. If Anderson did not take this step, he has lost the right to complain about the delay between his trial and when he begins his sentence.
Anderson was convicted of committing a crime against another person. The victim of the armed robbery that Anderson committed believed that Anderson had a gun and that his life was in danger. One of the purposes of punishment is retribution. The victim of a crime has an interest in seeing that the offender is punished so that he can have a sense of justice concerning the criminal act that was committed against him. As Anderson was tried and convicted of the crime of armed robbery, the victim should not lose the justice that he received because Anderson managed to slip through the cracks. I believe that it is in the victim should still be entitled to retribution in this instance.
Cornealious Anderson was tried, convicted, and sentenced to thirteen years for his role in a 2000 armed robbery. Anderson was allowed to walk out of the courtroom but was supposed to report to prison. If Anderson never received the instructions on where to report, he could have contacted the correctional facility to begin serving his sentence. Furthermore, there was a victim of the armed robbery that Anderson committed that should not be denied justice because Anderson Failed to contact the correctional facility.