Debieron Estar........

[Bobbert]

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.

[Rusty]

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.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

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.

[aleCcowaN]

I think there's something about the logic of modal auxiliary verbs in English that is causing some interference here.

How would you translate...?

Nunca se dejaron estar
Nunca quisieron estar parados/desempleados
Nunca intentaron estar representados

Dejar, querer, intentar and, yes, deber, are run of the mill verbs in Spanish. The first three are beyond any tensión between "the past of shall" and "must", and so is the latter.

"Debe dejar de fumar ... y debería hacer más ejercicio" ... dijo el doctor. Si fuera regañón, agregaría "Nunca debió comenzar a fumar ... y debería haber hecho más ejercicio a lo largo de su vida"

Could es el pasado de can, might es el pasado de may, would es el pasado de will, should es el pasado de shall, y must es huérfano. This is the way I always remembered the merry band of modal auxiliary verbs.

Debe dejar de fumar ... nunca debió comenzar a fumar, are both equally "must" in Spanish, or "should", I should say, as deber falls kind of half way and encompasses both.

Must always sound kind of ominous and biblical to me, until I hear someone saying "It's a must" ... seriously?

[aleCcowaN]

To add to the other very good replies previous to mine, I'd like to highlight that aspect (perfect/imperfect) is very important to the way Spanish speakers think.

Nunca debieron estar presos is imperfect (no pun intended) as a whole. It has no beginning nor end. It has no cause nor resolution. It's just a snapshot that implies a moral judgement: such thing shouldn't have happened. And the moral judgement is expressed in the perfect aspect debieron.

No debían estar presos becomes nunca debieron estar presos. No debían encarcelarlos becomes nunca debieron encarcelarlos.

[Bobbert]

Thank you for the explanations, Rusty, AngelicadeAlquezar, and aleCcowaN. That's clears it up for me.