Cherie Walker will spend the rest of her life behind bars for letting her husband impregnate her 11-year-old daughter, whom they forced to give birth without medical care.
What’s even weirder is that they gave the mother 7 consecutive life sentences, but the father who actually impregnated the child only got 1 life sentence + 42 years.
It also said that he was charged with the same 6 counts of child neglect though. So either the article was unclear on his actual sentence also being multiple consecutive life sentences or the charges of neglect didn’t all stick for some reason.
I don’t have any specifics but it could be that the father was not in a position to actually be responsible for her care at some point. Maybe the mother kicked him out or something. I’m just speculating, though. No idea really.
It’s simple. In the USA, and many other counties, rape of any sort by a man isn’t as bad as anything a woman/mother might do wrong. I didn’t read the article however I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the husband was also beating, raping or otherwise abusing his wife.
It’s mostly what it sounds like. Prison until you die. But, unless given a life sentence without the possibility of parole, once you’ve served a minimum number of years (and that number varies on the crime, state/federal law and judge’s applied minimums) you can become eligible for parole. What that means is a parole board can determine later that you have sufficiently served time for your crimes, that you are remorseful for them, and that you no longer pose a danger to anyone, and release you from prison before your death.
When it comes to sentences with specific years attached, like this guy’s 42 year sentence, it is a bit different. They can also end early with a parole decision, but there is a minimum time served for each sentence before you are eligible for parole. That minimum scales with the full sentence. It is, I think, usually 1/3rd of the full sentence, unless the judge sets a higher minimum.
Also you can be given multiple years long sentences, one per guilty verdict, but depending on the judge’s discretion or if those crimes are statuarily required to be served consecutively (i.e. one after the other), sometimes those sentences are to be served concurrently (i.e. at the same time). What that means is, if you get sentenced to two 1 year sentences and a 3 year sentence to be served concurrently, you’re really only serving 3 years. But if you have to serve them consecutively, you’ll be serving all 5 years in total. And your parole potential starts, thus, later.
So it’s kind of complicated. Sometimes you see someone getting a life sentence and they’re released in 20 years. Sometimes you see someone get a dozen sentences but they’re all served concurrently and they’re out in a few years too. Sometimes someone gets multiple sentences to be served consecutively and ends up with like 200 years in prison and are essentially guaranteed to die in prison before they are eligible for parole, despite none of their crimes carrying a life sentence potential.
Also this dude’s 42 years and life sentence are consecutive, so he must serve the minimum of both before possibility of parole. But that is probably about 35-40 years from now at minimum. I’m unclear if the mother’s 7 life sentences are consecutive or concurrent, but since they didn’t say, probably concurrent.
Sentences are concurrent by default unless the specific law they are convicted of breaking requires their sentence to be served consecutively or the judge specifically rules that they are to be consecutive. I am not really sure on the history of why that is though.
What’s even weirder is that they gave the mother 7 consecutive life sentences, but the father who actually impregnated the child only got 1 life sentence + 42 years.
ok but that is enough. the mom just got Overkill+
They do it that way so even with good behavior or some appeals for a commuted sentence, still ends up being more years than they’ll live by a mile.
It also said that he was charged with the same 6 counts of child neglect though. So either the article was unclear on his actual sentence also being multiple consecutive life sentences or the charges of neglect didn’t all stick for some reason.
I don’t have any specifics but it could be that the father was not in a position to actually be responsible for her care at some point. Maybe the mother kicked him out or something. I’m just speculating, though. No idea really.
It’s simple. In the USA, and many other counties, rape of any sort by a man isn’t as bad as anything a woman/mother might do wrong. I didn’t read the article however I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the husband was also beating, raping or otherwise abusing his wife.
You are clearly quite ignorant of the actual statistics when it comes to gender disparities in sentencing for the same crimes.
What even is a life sentence
It’s mostly what it sounds like. Prison until you die. But, unless given a life sentence without the possibility of parole, once you’ve served a minimum number of years (and that number varies on the crime, state/federal law and judge’s applied minimums) you can become eligible for parole. What that means is a parole board can determine later that you have sufficiently served time for your crimes, that you are remorseful for them, and that you no longer pose a danger to anyone, and release you from prison before your death.
When it comes to sentences with specific years attached, like this guy’s 42 year sentence, it is a bit different. They can also end early with a parole decision, but there is a minimum time served for each sentence before you are eligible for parole. That minimum scales with the full sentence. It is, I think, usually 1/3rd of the full sentence, unless the judge sets a higher minimum.
Also you can be given multiple years long sentences, one per guilty verdict, but depending on the judge’s discretion or if those crimes are statuarily required to be served consecutively (i.e. one after the other), sometimes those sentences are to be served concurrently (i.e. at the same time). What that means is, if you get sentenced to two 1 year sentences and a 3 year sentence to be served concurrently, you’re really only serving 3 years. But if you have to serve them consecutively, you’ll be serving all 5 years in total. And your parole potential starts, thus, later.
So it’s kind of complicated. Sometimes you see someone getting a life sentence and they’re released in 20 years. Sometimes you see someone get a dozen sentences but they’re all served concurrently and they’re out in a few years too. Sometimes someone gets multiple sentences to be served consecutively and ends up with like 200 years in prison and are essentially guaranteed to die in prison before they are eligible for parole, despite none of their crimes carrying a life sentence potential.
Also this dude’s 42 years and life sentence are consecutive, so he must serve the minimum of both before possibility of parole. But that is probably about 35-40 years from now at minimum. I’m unclear if the mother’s 7 life sentences are consecutive or concurrent, but since they didn’t say, probably concurrent.
Thanks for all that explanation. It ended up in me being even more confused what the point of 7 concurrent life sentences is.
Sentences are concurrent by default unless the specific law they are convicted of breaking requires their sentence to be served consecutively or the judge specifically rules that they are to be consecutive. I am not really sure on the history of why that is though.
The last I checked a *life sentence " was 40 or 45years. So if they claim 2 life sentences that technically 80-90 years in jail.
From a technical standpoint, getting multiple life sentences means if one gets removed on appeal, the others still stand.
For the victim(s), especially if there’s multiple victims, each life sentence acknowledges each crime committed against them and validates them.