Yesterday, the Massachusetts SJC announced a decision allowing a convicted rapist to “go free” after serving only 2 months of a 20 year prison sentence. The man was convicted of rape in 1990, but was released later in the year pending his appeal. But when his 1991 appeal was denied, the man never returned to prison, nor was he registered as a sex offender. For the next 16 years, the man lived free, even raising three sons. Most disturbingly, this same man was arrested two separate times for domestic abuse incidents, but surprisingly, law enforcement officials failed to realize that he should have been behind bars. Not until April of this year, when the man was stopped for a traffic violation, did an officer realize that he had never registered as a sex offender, as required by law. The SJC ruled yesterday that the man has a due process right to serve his sentence “promptly and continuously, rather than in installments” and that he had no duty to voluntarily be taken into custody. The court further stated that to make the man serve his sentence now would “violate the concept of fundamental fairness that is at the core of due process.”

The man is currently spending 6 months in jail for failure to register as a sex offender and is up for parole next month. The court chided the attorney general’s office for what they claim was an “inadvertent error.”

Is this fair to the victim? Should this man have to serve his sentence regardless?