3 life sentences, minimum 12 years in jail WOT?!

ntg · 5 May 2011 at 20:54

Alright, here is the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-13298439

So this guy rapes a woman, stabs her, burgles her house and then sets it on fire.

The judge gives him 3 life sentences. So far so good. He will have to serve a minimum of 12 years though! Which means that it is possible (extremely unlikely, yet possible) that he could be released after 12 years.

Now, I won't go into whether he should get a minimum of 12 years before considered for release or whether the sentence was fit for the crime. I just can't understand how it is possible for someone to get 3 life sentences and be eligible for release after 12 years. It just doesn't compute. What's the point?? Can someone explain to me the rationale behind it?

KNiVES · 5 May 2011 at 20:55

He's not going to be released after 12 years.

Raymond Lin · 5 May 2011 at 20:55

3 sentences served concurrently ?

Luseac · 5 May 2011 at 20:57

1. He won't be out in 12 years
2. A life sentence is life, it just doesn't mean the whole sentence will be spent in prison. He will be released on licence and have to adhere to certain conditions for the rest of his life.

ntg · 5 May 2011 at 20:57

Raymond Lin said:
3 sentences served concurrently ?

Apparently not, the article isn't clear but says he was given 2 life sentences in addition to the first life sentence.

CaptainRAVE · 5 May 2011 at 20:58

lol @ the "justice" in this country. She has to live with that for the rest of her life, he gets to stay in a "prison" for 12 years? No wonder there is so much crime these days.

SideWinder · 5 May 2011 at 20:58

The whole "life sentence" thing really bothers me as it doesn't really mean "life".

No1newts · 5 May 2011 at 20:58

Life should mean life, until you die. No need for multiple life sentences.

ntg · 5 May 2011 at 20:59

Luseac said:
1. He won't be out in 12 years
2. A life sentence is life, it just doesn't mean the whole sentence will be spent in prison. He will be released on licence and have to adhere to certain conditions for the rest of his life.

I don't think he will be out in 12 years either, but that's besides the point. Why hand someone 3 life sentences and allow him a chance (however miniscule) to be released after 12 years? How does the system work like that? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Theophany · 5 May 2011 at 20:59

KNiVES said:
He's not going to be released after 12 years.

This. Any parole board will be well aware of his crimes and I doubt any amount of perceived 'reform' whilst in prison would sway them to release him before he has served one life sentence at the very least.

Shayne · 5 May 2011 at 21:00

Life should mean life, but why stop there, if somebody is unquestionably guilty of a crime which is punished with a life sentance, surely it's better if the variable of "life" is until the rope tightens?

Luseac · 5 May 2011 at 21:01

kgi said:
I don't think he will be out in 12 years either, but that's besides the point. Why hand someone 3 life sentences and allow him a chance (however miniscule) to be released after 12 years? How does the system work like that? It just doesn't make sense to me.

The system has always worked like that. Unless we are talking about whole life tariffs (yes they do exist in this country) a life sentence is still a pretty awful thing. Licence conditions often mean people end back up inside for not the most serious of things.

Theophany · 5 May 2011 at 21:06

Shayne said:
Life should mean life, but why stop there, if somebody is unquestionably guilty of a crime which is punished with a life sentance, surely it's better if the variable of "life" is until the rope tightens?

Don't start the death penalty argument, that bloody AV thread is more than enough worms out of the can for one week!!

J-FRO · 5 May 2011 at 21:08

CaptainRAVE said:
lol @ the "justice" in this country. She has to live with that for the rest of her life, he gets to stay in a "prison" for 12 years? No wonder there is so much crime these days.

My sentiments exactly. Most of these prisons are nice than old peoples homes.

No1newts said:
Life should mean life, until you die. No need for multiple life sentences.

Meh, I say bring back the death penalty. This guy is a clear cut candidate for the lethal injection IMHO.

People like this get a second chance to integrate into society and often screw it up. The article mentions how he had only been out of prison for a week. Probably for something similar.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think everyone should be put down. But certain criminals who repeat certain categories of crime (i.e. murder, child molestation) should be put down because the so called rehabilitation hasn't worked in the long period in which they have been put away and they're consequently still a threat to society.

Rob_J · 5 May 2011 at 21:11

The way the justice system works in this country means he will be out within 7 years, because he will be deemed safe.

Luseac · 5 May 2011 at 21:12

Rob_J said:
The way the justice system works in this country means he will be out within 7 years, because he will be deemed safe.

How an earth do you work that one out?

Shayne · 5 May 2011 at 21:15

Luseac said:
How an earth do you work that one out?

I think it's something to do with it being easier to introduce somebody back into society several years earlier than they should be, to reduce the posibility of them being recognised.

Hitman_Leon · 5 May 2011 at 21:17

Trial I went to, two life sentences but, minimum of 7 years before parole consideration.
person was the lowest of the low.

Suppose the only good thing if anyone dose get out is the life license if they screw up again.

Ben Harrison · 5 May 2011 at 21:18

J-FRO said:
Don't get me wrong, I don't think everyone should be put down. But certain criminals who repeat certain categories of crime (i.e. murder, child molestation) should be put down because the so called rehabilitation hasn't worked in the long period in which they have been put away and they're consequently still a threat to society.

I agree, but I'm inclined to take an even harsher view, TBH. When you consider the consequences of a "repeat offense" (ie another victim of rape, molestation, murder...), I'm not convinced anyone guilty of this kind of crime should ever be given a second chance.

Luseac · 5 May 2011 at 21:19

Shayne said:
I think it's something to do with it being easier to introduce somebody back into society several years earlier than they should be, to reduce the posibility of them being recognised.

I have never heard of the recommended date for parole consideration being cut by 5 years....