UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-20470501

why is this guy possibly allowed out in 8 years?

In reply to fxceltic:

Hang on, the judge said 'he may never be released', so what you are saying is extremely unlikely.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I see that but it is possible he gets out in 8 years, the article doesnt say one way or the other which is more likely.

In reply to fxceltic: Because that is the law and probably the maximum minimum term that can be imposed for the crime. Whether or not the law is an ass has nothing to do with it. And yes, you are at risk of going all "Daily Mail", because it would be the law of the lynch mob if it were otherwise.

In reply to Hugh J: For the record "never be released" is the appropriate sentence.

I've read it twice and can't see where you get 8 years from - that's the age of the child. The sentence hasn't been given but the judge is considering indefinite (although I thought that was no longer an option).

In reply to Philip:
Saunders, of Merstham in Redhill, Surrey, was told he would have to serve a minimum of eight years in prison for the rape of the eight-year-old.

Read again? Though else where it makes it clear that it may be much longer

"Saunders, of Merstham in Redhill, Surrey, was told he would have to serve a minimum of eight years in prison for the rape of the eight-year-old."

Isn't the minimum sentence a requirement to ensure consistency in courts?

In reply to fxceltic:

It's equivalent to a "normal" sentence of 16 years. As it was a guilty plea he will have received a discount of between 1/5 to 1/3 - so probably equivalent to a sentence of 20 to 24 years.
He has to serve 8 but then he has to convince a parole board that he no longer poses a risk. If he fails to convince them - he stays in for the rest of the year till his next chance.
A normal sentence would mean he walks out after serving half.