To think a 7 year sentence is not a life sentence

[viques]

Wendall Baker was convicted in 2013 of the brutal beating, rape and imprisonment of a 66 year old woman. He was given a life sentence, but the parole board have now decided that he is no longer a danger to the public and is to be paroled . The man cruelly and remorselessly brutalised a woman and subjected her to the most appalling ordeal. He is still a danger to women, someone with his mindset should never be allowed to walk free.

What is it with parole boards and rapists. Remember Warboys.

The conviction rates for rape in the UK is appalling, luckily there was DNA to prove his guilt, though it took two trials thanks to incompetent police and judicial work , but for heavens sake, once one of the bastards is behind bars is it too much to expect them to bloody be kept there.

[ConcreteUnderpants]

viques sad to say I guessed from the title of your thread this was about sexual violence towards a woman.
Tragically I am no longer surprised by ridiculous or lenient sentences for the perpetrators of attacks against women.

[Awwlookatmybabyspider]

What is it with rapists and parole boards.

I thought the answer was very simple. They're clearly rapist lovers and women haters. What else would you call it

[CHIRIBAYA]

Americans have the right idea; life means life and then some. 7 years is obscene; he's effectively ended her life but now free to continue with his own. Where do they find the people who make these decisions??

[KaronAVyrus]

Our prison sentences in this country really are pathetic.

[PlatoAteMySnozcumber]

Actual whole life sentences are very rare and generally considered incompatible with international human rights legislation. Life sentences are usually given with a minimum tariff after which the parole board can decide if they are safe to release. There is no guarantee of release after the minimum tariff has expired and the offender will be the subject of monitoring and supervision by the probation services for the rest of their life, subject to recall if they no longer considered safe or if they commit any further offence.

So yes, it is a life sentence, but I certainly would not consider the minimum tariff served to be sufficient. It was originally 10.5 years but was later reduced for some reason.

[MaternitySpongeBob]

That's disgusting. The judicial system is a mess.

[Porcupineinwaiting]

I dont generally subscribe to "life without parole" but I'd be totally comfortable with a minimum tariff of 30 years imprisonment for those receiving a "life" sentence. I suspect most people would.

[LaureBerthaud]

How can 7 years (or 10.5 years) be sufficient punishment for such a crime against a woman?

How can they be confident that he won't brutalise another woman?

[Porcupineinwaiting]

Exactly because it was a crime by a managainst a woman @Laure. And so somehow to be expected. You cant (apparently) really expect men's lives to be totally derailed because they harm women or children.

[NC4Now]

A life sentence means he will be on licence for the rest of his life, and subject to prison recall at any time if he breaks the conditions or commits any further offences.
It doesn't mean he gets locked up for life.
Seven years doesn't seem that long on the face of it, but he's not a completely free man.

[Lordfrontpaw]

7 years is life if you are a labrador.

[whoopso]

@NC4Now it's not long by any stretch of the imagination. Never mind just on the face of it.

[ilovesooty]

@PlatoAteMySnozcumber has summed it up as far as I'm concerned.

[GoatyGoatyMingeMinge]

The parole board have now decided that he is no longer a danger to the public and is to be paroled

I'm guessing they have (a) more expertise and (b) more information about this man than any of us.

[nothingcanhurtmewithmyeyesshut]

7 years is life if you are a labrador.
Or work in retail.

But seriously 7 years? That's nothing. You get longer for tax fraud ffs.

[Floatyboat]

I'm guessing they have (a) more expertise and (b) more information about this man than any of us

Very true. Nonetheless would be interesting to know the details. Ie has he been castrated? Or are they putting all their face in counter productive sex offender therapy?

[viques]

goaty goaty

Just like the board who decided that John Warboys was safe to let loose? Not much expertise and information apparent in that decision.

I understand that he will be subjected to controls and restrictions, but he will also be free to enjoy a life, go for a meal out, watch a film at the cinema, meet up with friends for coffee, sit in the sun, make choices about his everyday activities. I would prefer that he didn't get to enjoy those aspects of normal life because the deliberate and violent actions he took denied another human being those choices.

And let's be honest, we have an overstretched probation service. The actual amount of supervision he will get will be minimal apart from restricting where he lives and a possible curfew.

[Floatyboat]

@viques you make an argument for detaining him both on justice/fairness and risk. The parole board can only look at risk as I understand it. I agree the jw case has undermined confidence in its decisions, but it's very difficult they do a lot and won't get everything right. Would be interesting to see the details.

[dottiedodah]

This is just another disgusting miscarriage of justice by the legal system! Honestly what is the point in giving out a "life sentence "for something like this and not carrying it out?

[LaureBerthaud]

I'm guessing they have (a) more expertise and (b) more information about this man than any of us

I have all the information needed about this man to know he should not be freed. He beat and raped a woman and he'll do it again. We might not get to hear about it because his next victim might not report it. Or be killed.

[EnthusiasmIsDisturbed]

I am sure they do have more information about this man and expertise on what ?

He committed a very violent crime and added to the violence of the crime by brutally beating her and locking her in a cupboard

That is enough to know that he needs to serve more than seven years

He unfortunately got lucky with who was on the parole board

[1forAll74]

Just too many loopholes in the judicial system. Horrible and despicable people go to prison,and are then catered for,to see if they will be suited for release, despite the horrific crimes that they have commited again and again. Nobody understands this, everyone hates this, but you have to look after the prisoners of course !!

[Lockheart]

The parole board works only on risk to the public. What has happened before is, to them, irrelevant.

This man was 56 when he was sentenced in June 2013, so he will now be 63.

He was originally sentenced to 10yrs 6 months, less the 650 days he had spent in custody in the late 90s during the initial investigations / trials. So just under 9yrs.

In 2014 this was reduced by another 2yrs, so just under 7 years. Which brings us basically to where we are now in the present. He's now served his minimum term.

From reading the judges sentencing remarks, it is clear he had severe drug abuse problems when he was younger.

I would guess given his age and his history that he is in poor health and hence considered low risk.

Parole boards don't make decisions lightly, and I'm sure they had good reason for deciding he was no longer a risk.

[ParkheadParadise]

The justice system in this country is a joke.

[GoatyGoatyMingeMinge]

I have all the information needed about this man to know he should not be freed. He beat and raped a woman and he'll do it again.

Just curious about how came by this information.