Debieron Estar........

Debieron Estar........
 

I saw this sentence in an article from the Agencia EFE:

Nunca debieron estar presos. Su esperada liberación nos emociona a todos.
They should never have been imprisoned. Their long-awaited release thrills us all.

I have never seen the construct “debieron estar” before to mean “should never have been.” I would have translated the sentence as:

Nunca deberián haber estado presos. Su esperada liberación nos emociona a todos.

Are both ways correct?

Is my translation incorrect?

Is this construct only used in news reporting or is it used in daily speech as well?

Explanations are appreciated.

First off, I believe both constructs are used in daily speech, not just in the news.
(I would have been tempted to substitute «ser encarcelados», but «estar presos» means the same thing.)

Now, to the real question. Why are you seeing «debieron estar» instead of «deberián haber estado»?

It comes down to a difference in understanding/interpretation used in British English (and let's not forget the differences in spelling, punctuation and grammar). In British English, 'should have been here' means 'should have arrived and left'. In American English, we don't include the additional action/state (only the arrival is our focus).
As far as I've noticed, the understanding in Spain differs in like fashion to the understanding on this side of the pond.

Veamos qué más aportan los hispanohablantes.

I agree with Rusty that both constructions are used in daily speech, and even "no debieron haber estado presos/encarcelados".
I haven't found a rigorous explanation, but to me, "debieron" judges a something that happened, while "deberían" judges also a moral aspect of the situation.