BREAKING: Philpott jailed for just 15 years...

I need not go over the finer details of what has happened as I am sure you know already. But for murdering 6 children, he has basically gotten off with a slap on the wrist.

Thats 30 months per murder. British "justice" has sunk to a new low.

I cant understand why he isn't hung from the neck or locked in a small room with no light for the rest of his life. But alas he will be out in time for his 72nd birthday and back to living off our backs.

And those of you who say that it is a minimum term. Don't try and kid me, or your self. You know he will be out as soon as he is done with those 15. Thats how things work in the UK. Crime and laziness is rewarded in a failed system, that tragically failed 6 people to the cost of their lives.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303851/Mick-Philpott-sentenced-LIFE-wife-Mairead-gets-17-years-Derby-house-plot.html

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

ssxx

Original post by dj1015

Stop being so irrational!
He did not mean to kill those kids.
I seen so many cases where women have stabbed their partner to death and got done for manslaughter and walked free in under 3 years!

I find it sexist how the women always get the lighter sentence compared to the men.
Philpott wife should have got 15 years as well, but women always play the "weak, woman controlled by the man" card. She is a nasty piece of work, lazy low life who just breeds kids and lives of tax payers.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 2

Abbieastoria

For starters the reason it's 15 years is because he wasn't convicted of murder it was manslaughter. Secondly it's not 15 years, he received a life sentence with a minimum of 15 years, that means he can't even begin to appeal to be let out on good behaviour for at least 15 years.

Whereas the other two people got 17 years even though they didn't start the fire this is because they didn't get a life sentence meaning that techniqully they could be let out on good behaviour in a manner of a few years

Although to be quite honest, I think all three of them will serve very long sentences and if they are let out early will have to change their identity, also they will probably cost less to keep them in prison than it will to keep them on all the benefits they were receiving

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3

tehforum

Original post by dj1015

A minimum of 15 years...

edit: see above post

Reply 4

dj1015

Original post by Abbieastoria

This post shows how desperately out of touch you are and lacking in sympathy of the innocent lives that have been taken.

I know its manslaughter, I can read. But when you pour petrol on the floor of your house and light it knowing that your children are asleep upstairs, that is effectively murdering them, and he should have been tried as such.

The other two will do half, as it standard in UK prisons. So they will be out and about soon enough.

Reply 5

dj1015

Original post by tehforum

A minimum of 15 years...

edit: see above post

And he will be out in 15. Thats what I am saying, cant you read my post?

Reply 6

dj1015

Original post by ssxx

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=42081774

Stop being so irrational!
He did not mean to kill those kids.

I would like to see someone prove that he didnt.

Reply 7

taintedCH

Original post by dj1015

Murder:

Actus Reus: Unlawful killing
Mens Rea: Intent to kill or cause GBH.

The prosecution's case was that they wanted to use this act of supposed heroism to persuade the Judge in his custody suit to award him custody. Therefore there was no intention to cause GBH or kill, therefore it wasn't murder.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 8

dj1015

Original post by taintedCH

Like I was saying. This country is soft on justice. He got away with it.

Reply 9

Redolent

Do you actually care about the children that died or is this all just a nice excuse for you and the Daily Mail to go on another political rant?

Reply 10

taintedCH

Original post by dj1015

Like I was saying. This country is soft on justice. He got away with it.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Unless he can prove he is rehabilitated, he will never be released. He would only ever be released on licence too. I don't know about you, but I personally do not like the idea of retributive justice. I think retribution is best left for the countries in which thieves have their hands cut off. In Britain the system tries the scavenge the most of what's left and try to rebuild as many lives as possible.

Were he to be executed, imagine how his family would suffer? He has 5 other children who, the crime aside, would likely not want to see their father die. This country is not soft on crime. We have an extremely high incarceration rate. Throwing people into prison does not solve the problems faced by society. You want to make people behave better? Raise people out of poverty and give them a decent education.

Reply 11

dj1015

Original post by Redolent

Do you actually care about the children that died or is this all just a nice excuse for you and the Daily Mail to go on another political rant?

I care that people died yes.

I also care that people get away with doing it.

Reply 12

Johnathon16

Original post by dj1015

It isn't effectively murdering as it was not his intention to kill them, you can't just alter definitions and make false assertions to support your line of argument.
Things have definitions for a reason, it was manslaughter, quite obviously and that is why they have been tried in this way.
The justice system is not being out of touch, it is being logical and rational, something your failing at in this post.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 13

Smartcook

As much as I find what he did disgusting. It was manslaughter and not murder.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 14

Johnathon16

Original post by dj1015

I would like to see someone prove that he didnt.

I would like to see you prove that he did?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 15

dj1015

Original post by Johnathon16

I would like to see you prove that he did?

Posted from TSR Mobile

The act in its self is prove enough.

Also if people cant accept that this is murder, then maybe we need to redefine what manslaughter is.

Reply 16

Smartcook

Original post by dj1015

The act in its self is prove enough.

Also if people cant accept that this is murder, then maybe we need to redefine what manslaughter is.

But it wasn't ****ing murder as he wanted to get back at the woman who left.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 17

Abbieastoria

Original post by dj1015

I resent that remark, I am not at all out of touch, I think what he did was absolutely disgraceful and he should never be let out when you also consider his past crimes he is a danger to society, however I was merely explaining why the judge would have ruled a 15year prison sentence

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 18

Johnathon16

Original post by dj1015

The act in its self is prove enough.

Also if people cant accept that this is murder, then maybe we need to redefine what manslaughter is.

No the act itself is not proof enough.

Manslaughter is not in need of redefining either as it is perfectly logical and sensible.
Murder requires intent to kill and if the act was not done with the intention of causing death it is not murder.
If somebody punches a man in the face and he dies as a result is this murder? Should this person be tried on the same level as that of a man that has intentionally shot or stabbed somebody?

Posted from TSR Mobile