I fully support that journalists should look for stories that highlight injustices against the little guy. Who would, otherwise? Prisoners, more than just about any other segment of society, need someone to look after their rights. But today's formulaic Spotlight Team look at DOC sentencing computations goes astray.

At its heart, the story is about overly complex and hard to track sentencing computations. But that wasn't exactly the theme presented. Somehow it was formed into a morality play about a heartless, incompetent and indifferent government oppressing a powerless, sympathetic victim. A cynic might say the facts were stylistically stuffed into a template for a journalistic prize.

The 'victim' in the story was sentenced in 1988 to 30 years in prison. He was released six months later, on parole. He violated that parole and went back to prison until 1997 when he was released on parole a second time. Again, he violated the terms of his parole and went back to jail.

In 2002 (note that his 30 year sentence would end in 2018) the complex sentencing rules indicate that he should have been released again, but he wasn't. It wasn't until 2006 that he was released, four years after he could have been but twelve years before his original sentence expired.

Was the guy jerked around by the complexity of the system? Absolutely.

Should the DOC have told him they screwed up? Yes!

Was the public, including victims of the robbery, assaults, etc. dis-served by a 30 year sentence that translated to six months? Without a doubt.

In other words, this is a big complicated story about sentencing rules that are too opaque and much too complex. Sure, dry complicated stories are hard to present without resorting to caricature and they're hard for readers. But try us anyway.