Although I disagree with some of the comments you have made, I can see that unlike the OP you are engaging in serious comment.(Original post by Annuhlees)
Can someone explain to me how this is manslaughter and how he didn't intend to kill his children?
Others have explained the technical difference between manslaughter and murder but there is also history here.
In the early 1970s Mrs Hyam set a fire in a house in very similar circumstances to this. 2 children died. She was convicted of murder and her conviction was upheld 3:2 by the House of Lords. However arguably there were five different reasons for the decision and the law ended up in a terrible mess. Through several later cases and until 1996 it remained in a mess. So much so that in the 1980s my entire first week's reading for my law degree was devoted to the issue raised in Hyam. I wasn't the only one. Generations of law students were brought on the problems of Hyam. Enormous sums of time and money were wasted and several later convictions were overturned. A case in 1996 more or less sorted the problems out.
When Philpott came round in very similar circumstances, I am sure the CPS considered:- "Never again. We are not going to try for a risky conviction for murder and spend the next 25 years dealing with the aftermath when there is a safe manslaughter conviction to be had."
x Turn on thread page Beta
BREAKING: Philpott jailed for just 15 years... watch
Last edited by nulli tertius; 04-04-2013 at 20:56.
- 04-04-2013 20:54
- 05-04-2013 01:34
How can anyone still be arguing that this is murder (by lawful definition) there is no concrete proof or evidence that he intended to kill them, therefore if they tried to do him for murder there is a good chance he might not have gone to prison at all
ergo, trying to get him done for manslaughter got him the longest possible sentence. Just because this story is in the news and high profile doesn't mean he should be locked up and have the key throw away. 15 years in prison is still not going to be pleasant and even after this time he will have to apply for parole at the frail age of 71, it's pretty much a complete life sentence
Posted from TSR Mobile
(Original post by Jordan-James)
- 05-04-2013 05:04
Just an article i ran across,
3 men murdered a child rapist, all individually received a higher sentence than Philpott.
The Justice system is truly broken.
(Original post by Michaelj)
- 05-04-2013 05:06
Hey guys, just because it was manslaughter doesn't mean that 15 years is a fair enough sentence! He should have life without the possibility of parole. In America, 13 year olds get life without parole for 2nd degree murder. Why should this man get 15 years for ok... accidently killing his children. He set fire to his house, he knew they were in there and he didn't give a **** when they died.
And for people saying, "how will he be able to live with himself", "he needs rehabilitation".. He's a diagnosed PSYCHOPATH. Meaning he won't give a **** even in 10 years time. He may pretend to be but that'll be that. If anything his diagnosis will often mean "unsafe to be released as likely to re-offend" and so he may stay imprisoned.
(Original post by Abbieastoria)
- 05-04-2013 05:32
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
(Original post by Jordan-James)
- 05-04-2013 05:56
Just gonna put this into perspective, someone could walk into your house and stab you to death, receiving less than 10 years in prison. Tell me how you would truly feel about that without lying.
Truth is, people like you have no experience of what its like to lose someone to murder and see their killers get soft sentences. You would never understand the pain people like myself have gone through.
You just look at it from an outside perspective, Trying to play the equality man.
(Original post by taintedCH)
- 05-04-2013 06:39
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.
- 05-04-2013 06:44
- 05-04-2013 10:20