Can someone please explain this prison sentence to me please?

Soubriquet · 2023-03-13T14:18:50+00:00

Dh pointed it out to me. David Carrick has been sentenced to 36 life sentences after sexually assaulting and raping 49 women. He was a police officer. So why is he then sentenced to a minimum of 30 years? If he has 36 life sentences, shouldn’t he be in prison for life?!

TeaStory · 13/03/2023 14:25

He got a “life sentence”, not a “whole life sentence”. So he will serve at least 30 years inside prison, maybe more depending on his behaviour etc, but at that point he will be eligible for parole and may be able to serve the rest of his sentence outside prison.

www.gov.uk/types-of-prison-sentence/life-sentences

Surplus2requirements · 13/03/2023 14:25

From Gov.uk

If you’re given a life sentence it will last for the rest of your life.

If you’re ever released from prison you will spend the rest of your life ‘on licence’ in the community.

If you break licence conditions or commit another crime you can be sent back to prison.

Hewon't be eligible to apply for released under licence for at least 30 years

Original poster

Soubriquet · 13/03/2023 14:30

I suppose that makes sense…sorta. Doesn’t make it right but it makes sense.

Thanks

OP posts:

Louisa4987 · 13/03/2023 14:35

The other part to remember is that when people are sentenced for multiple offences but they normally run concurrently so 36 life sentences doesn't really mean anything.

purpledalmation · 13/03/2023 14:36

A life sentence is a severe sentence showing the gravity of the offence. A life sentence doesn't mean you stay in for life unless it is a whole life tarrif like Sarah everards killer. A life sentence means you can be released after a minimum term but are on licence for life and have to report your whereabouts and have supervision. 36 life sentences will run at the same time ( concurrently) no consecutively but he serves a minimum of 30 years

purpledalmation · 13/03/2023 14:37

Louisa4987 · 13/03/2023 14:35

The other part to remember is that when people are sentenced for multiple offences but they normally run concurrently so 36 life sentences doesn't really mean anything.

I beg to differ. For the victims it means everything to have each crime recognised but you're right for the prisoner they run concurrently

purpledalmation · 13/03/2023 14:38

The first thing out of this bastards mouth when they came to arrest him was. I am a police officer.

FourBoysAndAFeline · 13/03/2023 14:38

But he got 36 life sentences.

So the 35 don't mean anything really then?

purpledalmation · 13/03/2023 14:48

FourBoysAndAFeline · 13/03/2023 14:38

But he got 36 life sentences.

So the 35 don't mean anything really then?

They mean something to the victims. Recognition of their pain and suffering.

Fuwari · 13/03/2023 14:50

Concurrent sentences make me uncomfortable. It's no more of a hardship to serve 50 concurrent sentences than it is to serve one, so where is the additional punishment? I'd feel let down if I was a victim. It just doesn't feel right to me.

It's the reason why some people who get caught for one thing will then spill and admit more as they know a single sentence for all will be less than what they'd get for each individually. They get to move on with a "clean slate" but again, what about the victims?

Lockheart · 13/03/2023 14:55

Fuwari · 13/03/2023 14:50

Concurrent sentences make me uncomfortable. It's no more of a hardship to serve 50 concurrent sentences than it is to serve one, so where is the additional punishment? I'd feel let down if I was a victim. It just doesn't feel right to me.

It's the reason why some people who get caught for one thing will then spill and admit more as they know a single sentence for all will be less than what they'd get for each individually. They get to move on with a "clean slate" but again, what about the victims?

But you can't make someone serve 50 separate life sentences for the simple reason that everyone only has one life.

One life sentence has the same effect as 50. Someone with a life sentence will always be on licence and never ever have a clean slate.

Whowhatwherewhenwhy1 · 13/03/2023 14:58

FourBoysAndAFeline · 13/03/2023 14:38

But he got 36 life sentences.

So the 35 don't mean anything really then?

As a victim yeah they have acknowledged 36 crimes but if he only serves time in reality for one and the other 35 are just concurrent and of no consequence to him I think it is disgusting. They should not run concurrently and he should serve them all even if he dies in prison. His victims have been sentenced to a full life of horrific memories whereas he can be free to live a normal life in39 years. I hope he suffers horribly in prison.

Untitledsquatboulder · 13/03/2023 14:59

FourBoysAndAFeline · 13/03/2023 14:38

But he got 36 life sentences.

So the 35 don't mean anything really then?

Well no, unless his life magically becomes 35 times as long, he's not going to be able to serve 36 life terms.

Surplus2requirements · 13/03/2023 14:59

The number of victims and sentences are reflected in the minimum term he must serve in prison.

30 years is unusually long in the UK

Lockheart · 13/03/2023 15:05

Whowhatwherewhenwhy1 · 13/03/2023 14:58

As a victim yeah they have acknowledged 36 crimes but if he only serves time in reality for one and the other 35 are just concurrent and of no consequence to him I think it is disgusting. They should not run concurrently and he should serve them all even if he dies in prison. His victims have been sentenced to a full life of horrific memories whereas he can be free to live a normal life in39 years. I hope he suffers horribly in prison.

Show quote history

Realistically he'd only be able to serve one and a bit of the custodial sentences. So what do you do if you're victim numbers 3 through 36?

He has a sentence for life. We can't punish anyone any more than that.

unfortunateevents · 13/03/2023 15:14

The judge in her summing-upup at the time gave a very clear explanation of exactly why and how the sentences were applied as they were. I'm sure if you google you can still find it.

Rosula · 13/03/2023 15:23

Fuwari · 13/03/2023 14:50

Concurrent sentences make me uncomfortable. It's no more of a hardship to serve 50 concurrent sentences than it is to serve one, so where is the additional punishment? I'd feel let down if I was a victim. It just doesn't feel right to me.

It's the reason why some people who get caught for one thing will then spill and admit more as they know a single sentence for all will be less than what they'd get for each individually. They get to move on with a "clean slate" but again, what about the victims?

The additional punishment lies in the fact that the multiple convictions will have been major factors in setting the minimum term. Had it been only one murder, the likelihood is that the minimum term, if imposed at all, would have been much shorter.

Rosula · 13/03/2023 15:26

Whowhatwherewhenwhy1 · 13/03/2023 14:58

As a victim yeah they have acknowledged 36 crimes but if he only serves time in reality for one and the other 35 are just concurrent and of no consequence to him I think it is disgusting. They should not run concurrently and he should serve them all even if he dies in prison. His victims have been sentenced to a full life of horrific memories whereas he can be free to live a normal life in39 years. I hope he suffers horribly in prison.

Show quote history

How exactly would you propose that anyone serves 36 consecutive life terms?

He may be out after the minimum sentence, he may not. He would have to satisfy the parole board pretty convincingly that he is safe to be released, and he would be subject to recall if he committed even the most minor of offences thereafter.

He will be 78 or even older if or when he is eventually released on licence. After 30 years in an institution, it's not exactly going to be a normal life, is it?

Fuwari · 13/03/2023 17:57

While I wouldn't advocate us following the states, they have no problem in sentencing people to hundreds of years in prison! I get logically why we use concurrent sentencing but I'm just saying that as a victim it would make me feel like someone isn't being punished for what they did to me specifically.

Surplus2requirements · 13/03/2023 18:03

But that's not how it works here, its not a case of some victims are being ignored. They pass sentence for all the crimes you have been found guilty of not a sentence per crime.

BlackLambAndGreyFalcon · 13/03/2023 18:04

Just to add in that 30 years is the MINIMUM term not the maximum. He's very unlikely to be released at the end of his minimum term, and even if he was he'd been on licence (and at risk of recall to prison) for the rest of his life. This is what a life sentence means in the UK. It does not mean a whole life sentence in prison, which is reserved for a (statistically) small number of offenders guilty of the most heinous crimes (Wayne Couzens being an example of one).

Gingerkittykat · 13/03/2023 23:56

He is 48 so when the minimum 30 years has passed he will be 78. Hopefully he will not be released then and spend the rest of his life in prison.

gogohmm · 14/03/2023 00:07

30 years is the minimum. The fact there was multiple offences would have been taken into account when sentencing hence 30 years before eligible to apply for parole. Due to his age there's a high possibility he will never be released

Louisa4987 · 14/03/2023 20:04

@purpledalmation you've totally misinterpreted my post. What I was getting at is it doesn't mean they're going to be in prison for a life sentence x 36. It doesn't actually change the length of time they serve at all. That's what i meant by pointless. I wasn't victim bashing so please don't try and insinuate that I was

SandyY2K · 14/03/2023 20:09

Sentences are to lenenient in the UK. He should never be released.