Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    I have looked and read (not just the Mail btw), and came to the perfectly logical conclusion that a man driven by greed and pure unadulterated selfishness, planned to burn his house down. Then hoped by chance that someone else would be around to pull his kids out of the building he just set of fire.

    I am fully aware that he did not consciously intend to kill 6 people. However by his utter negligence in his hateful and disgusting act, he murdered them. Plain and simple.

    It might not count as murder under our current law, but I am saying the law needs changing. So that cases like this are counted as murder and so that animals can be caged for life (which means life from the word go) or worse.
    Agree with the first part of your first paragraph, but there is nothing to suggest the second part being true.

    So you would completely get rid of the definition of manslaughter and consider everything falling under that to be murder?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coconut2456)
    Agree with the first part of your first paragraph, but there is nothing to suggest the second part being true.

    So you would completely get rid of the definition of manslaughter and consider everything falling under that to be murder?
    I would look to the american system for inspiration initially. However its hard to legislate every possible scenario or outcome. But I would hope that animals like Philpott would receive more harsh sentencing under any new laws.

    But in a nutshell, more manslaughter cases should be reclassified as murder and we as a society need to change that way we view these most disgusting of acts.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone explain to me how this is manslaughter and how he didn't intend to kill his children? Personally, starting a house fire with children sleeping upstairs- some so young they wouldn't have a clue what to do, isn't murder? Was he dropped as baby? Seriously, setting fire downstairs so even if the kids woke up they wouldn't be able to get downstairs to get out surely is murder?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annuhlees)
    Can someone explain to me how this is manslaughter and how he didn't intend to kill his children? Personally, starting a house fire with children sleeping upstairs- some so young they wouldn't have a clue what to do, isn't murder? Was he dropped as baby? Seriously, setting fire downstairs so even if the kids woke up they wouldn't be able to get downstairs to get out surely is murder?
    He planned on playing the hero and saving them. He set the fire to frame his former mistress.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annuhlees)
    Can someone explain to me how this is manslaughter and how he didn't intend to kill his children? Personally, starting a house fire with children sleeping upstairs- some so young they wouldn't have a clue what to do, isn't murder? Was he dropped as baby? Seriously, setting fire downstairs so even if the kids woke up they wouldn't be able to get downstairs to get out surely is murder?
    This is what I have spent 5 pages of this thread trying to explained to people. But they seem not to be coming around to our way of thinking yet.

    To many apologists and sympathizers who wouldn't care if he was back out on the street in time for them to graduate from university on this thread, defending his soft sentence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    He planned on playing the hero and saving them. He set the fire to frame his former mistress.
    It is the perfect plan for any would be murders out there now.

    Just set the building on fire, its only manslaughter. So if you happened to get caught, you wont have to go to Butlins for as long.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    He planned on playing the hero and saving them. He set the fire to frame his former mistress.
    Am I the only one who doesn't believe this?! Seriously, who puts their kids in danger and like that. Surely he should of rang 999 before he done it then so they could of been there 30 seconds after it started to give the kids a chance.

    No, he should of been done for murder.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    I have looked and read (not just the Mail btw), and came to the perfectly logical conclusion that a man driven by greed and pure unadulterated selfishness, planned to burn his house down. Then hoped by chance that someone else would be around to pull his kids out of the building he just set of fire.

    I am fully aware that he did not consciously intend to kill 6 people. However by his utter negligence in his hateful and disgusting act, he murdered them. Plain and simple.

    It might not count as murder under our current law, but I am saying the law needs changing. So that cases like this are counted as murder and so that animals can be caged for life (which means life from the word go) or worse.
    He didn't intend to murder them, therefore it's manslaughter. Just because someone's deed is more evil doesn't negate the fact it's manslaughter. I agree he should be in life without parole but either way you can't call it murder because it isn't murder.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annuhlees)
    Can someone explain to me how this is manslaughter and how he didn't intend to kill his children? Personally, starting a house fire with children sleeping upstairs- some so young they wouldn't have a clue what to do, isn't murder? Was he dropped as baby? Seriously, setting fire downstairs so even if the kids woke up they wouldn't be able to get downstairs to get out surely is murder?
    I'm very rusty on criminal law, but as far as I recall, you have to show direct or oblique intent. Clearly, there wasn't direct intent here, but oblique intent requires showing that death was an almost absolutely certainty. The latter is a pretty high test, hence the manslaughter.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    This is what I have spent 5 pages of this thread trying to explained to people. But they seem not to be coming around to our way of thinking yet.

    To many apologists and sympathizers who wouldn't care if he was back out on the street in time for them to graduate from university on this thread, defending his soft sentence.
    Judging by all your red gems and how people are replying to your post, I'd wager that it wasn't the first time somebody has disagreed with you...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    It is the perfect plan for any would be murders out there now.

    Just set the building on fire, its only manslaughter. So if you happened to get caught, you wont have to go to Butlins for as long.
    Well, if you intend to kill them, then it is murder. That you intended to kill someone is of course, for the prosecution to prove. Then again, proving intent is the case in every criminal prosecution, so they're pretty adept at this...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michaelj)
    Judging by all your red gems and how people are replying to your post, I'd wager that it wasn't the first time somebody has disagreed with you...
    Judging by the fact that most people approve of this thread (see post #1), I would wager that this isn't the first time you haven't been completely in the wrong.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    Judging by the fact that most people approve of this thread (see post #1), I would wager that this isn't the first time you haven't been completely in the wrong.
    Your initial post wasn't too bad but you've gone OTT in your following posts after. Even then it's 50/50 for your initial post regarding rep. Even then the people repping you haven't had the courage to post in this thread.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michaelj)
    Your initial post wasn't too bad but you've gone OTT in your following posts after. Even then it's 50/50 for your initial post regarding rep. Even then the people repping you haven't had the courage to post in this thread.
    So you have seen who has repped me and compared that to a list of posters on this thread?

    Im confused. :confused:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    So you have seen who has repped me and compared that to a list of posters on this thread?

    Im confused. :confused:
    Since 10 people haven't replied here supporting you, it's obvious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michaelj)
    Since 10 people haven't replied here supporting you, it's obvious.
    Whats obvious? That they can see that I am doing a good job swatting down opposing arguments on my own and just gave me a thumbs up.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    Whats obvious? That they can see that I am doing a good job swatting down opposing arguments on my own and just gave me a thumbs up.
    Your consistent argument is that he murdered them which is plain wrong. He didn't intend to murder anyone therefore it is manslaughter. Manslaughter = accidently death. Just because his crime was more evil than the typical manslaughter convict doesn't mean it wasn't manslaughter. Yes, his sentence is pathetic but so are your arguments.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly I have to agree with some of the above posters that I don't understand how setting a fire downstairs in your house with all your children upstairs and then going by accounts of witnesses and people that were there buggering off and doing **** all to help isn't murder. I mean I get how under our current law it isn't but to morally to me that sounds an awful lot like murder.

    Secondly, people keep on going on about how he needs to be rehabilitated and whatever. This man doesn't deserve any help off anyone, he is sick an twisted, and from news stories and interviews with people involved in the case he doesn't even care that his children are dead. If he doesn't care now what makes you think he's going to care 15 years (or however long he'll end up serving) down the line because he had a few chats with some bull**** shrink.

    (Original post by coconut2456)
    He tried to domineer people who could do nothing to him, that's very very different to trying to domineer grown men in prison who could beat the crap out of him if they felt like it.
    Not all people in prison are strong thugs, there are many weak and weedy men in there. Also just because someone is strong physically doesn't mean they are mentally. He could easily manipulate people in prison.

    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    I think, if the sentence for manslaughter is 15 years, then he should receive 6 of those sentences, so he gets 90 years.
    I agree with this 100%. I think this country needs to operate on a system where sentences are served back-to-back.


    Also before people have a go I am not a fan of the death sentence, but I really think the British justice system needs a revamp so that people like him are actually punished.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michaelj)
    Your consistent argument is that he murdered them which is plain wrong. He didn't intend to murder anyone therefore it is manslaughter. Manslaughter = accidently death. Just because his crime was more evil than the typical manslaughter convict doesn't mean it wasn't manslaughter. Yes, his sentence is pathetic but so are your arguments.

    If you had bothered to read my other post, you will see why I justified that it wasn't manslaughter, and why manslaughter should be redefined under the law, so that animals like Philpott get treated correctly.

    But like everything else you don't have a response too, you just brush over and it spam me with more of your flawed rhetoric.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    I thought my position might be a little on the fringe. But I was just shocked to read your comments.

    If you really believe that the government is in anyway pleased or finds the barbaric murder of 6 children convenient, then you need to get your head examined my friend.
    Don't underestimate a government my friend.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 5, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.