Mick Philpott guilty of manslaughter

[fishy_taste]

But falling asleep with the cooker on = accident, surely. It's very different to deliberatley starting a fire (with or without the intention of killing).

 

Accident, yes - result = manslaughter. The circumstances determine the sentence (as they appear to have done so in this case).

 

The example was to contrast the venom exhibited towards Philpott with the way the law deals with matters. Unemotionally and not directed at any one individual personally.

 

The children died as a result of his actions, but it was generally accepted that his intention was not to murder his children. in fact, it seems, in a very warped irony, his actions were designed to secure the custody of his other children with another woman.

 

Still, he's got life, so justice is done - though probably not for those who wish to see him at the end of a rope!

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2013 at 12:11 ----------

 

So you have doubt that he may be guilty?

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 16:39 ----------

 

 

I think you have come to the conclusion that I am a supporter of the death penalty. That is not necessarily true. I merely ask a question. You have not answered the one I asked, merely the one you were pre disposed to answer.

 

I answered your question with a legal and a moral answer (the latter being what I believe you were getting at).

 

As for the doubt - when Evans was found guilty, at the time many had 'no doubt'. Same with Bentley and Kixzko etc. They were all found guilty. Had there been any doubt, they would not (or should not) have been found guilty.

 

To summarise my original answer - how can we try someone for murder when the punishment for that crime is state condoned murder?

 

And, in the wider context (not in this specific case, because that is not how the law or a civilised society works), if we get it wrong we cannot undo the death penalty.

[Olive]

Accident, yes - result = manslaughter. The circumstances determine the sentence (as they appear to have done so in this case).

 

The example was to contrast the venom exhibited towards Philpott with the way the law deals with matters. Unemotionally and not directed at any one individual personally.

 

The children died as a result of his actions, but it was generally accepted that his intention was not to murder his children. in fact, it seems, in a very warped irony, his actions were designed to secure the custody of his other children with another woman.

 

Still, he's got life, so justice is done - though probably not for those who wish to see him at the end of a rope!

 

 

I understand why you used this as an example.

There's no deliberate action in an accident though, it's just that - an accident, the result wouldn't be manslaughter.

The reason Philpott was charged with manslaughter is that he meant to start the fire.

[fishy_taste]

I understand why you used this as an example.

There's no deliberate action in an accident though, it's just that - an accident, the result wouldn't be manslaughter.

The reason Philpott was charged with manslaughter is that he meant to start the fire.

 

Not so long ago a man, Gary Hart (I think), fell asleep at the wheel of his car which then left the road, came to rest on a railway track causing a train to derail and people died.

 

He was convicted of manslaughter and jailed.

 

He did not get in his car to drive meaning to fall asleep and cause the train crash.

 

It was manslaughter because people died as a result of his actions. The law is the law.

 

If the intention to start the fire to kill his children were proved, he would have been tried and convicted of murder.

[alchresearch]

Not so long ago a man, Gary Hart (I think), fell asleep at the wheel of his car which then left the road, came to rest on a railway track causing a train to derail and people died.

 

He was an odd man:

 

"No deaths occurred at the point of impact with my Land Rover.

 

"They all occurred 700 yards down the track which I feel other people should have been held accountable for, so in my own head I've dealt with it in that fashion."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-12591249

[truman]

Not so long ago a man, Gary Hart (I think), fell asleep at the wheel of his car which then left the road, came to rest on a railway track causing a train to derail and people died.

 

He was convicted of manslaughter and jailed.

 

He did not get in his car to drive meaning to fall asleep and cause the train crash.

 

It was manslaughter because people died as a result of his actions. The law is the law.

 

If the intention to start the fire to kill his children were proved, he would have been tried and convicted of murder.

 

He wasn't convicted of manslaughter..He was in no fit state to have been driving...he was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving because of it.. that's if I remember correctly..

[esme]

Mod Note

 

Apparently my previous note hasn't had the desired effect, so here goes one last time.

 

Discuss the topic or the thread will be closed.

 

If you really want to discuss capital punishment then start another thread, but don't count on it staying open long as previous discussions on that topic have not produced any new insights.

[mikem8634]

Has anybody come across any information relating to special measures, above and beyond the norm, that may have to be implemented to safeguard him in prison? I have heard mention that the nature of his crime (obviously) could put him at risk but also that their are concerns that the self-aggrandising and controlling aspects of his personality are giving the authorities cause for concern. It seems plausible, even likely, that this might be the case, however, I can't find any link to a source for this info.

 

(please don't use this to launch into calls for 'prison justice')

[Spiky_Head]

Has anybody come across any information relating to special measures, above and beyond the norm, that may have to be implemented to safeguard him in prison? I have heard mention that the nature of his crime (obviously) could put him at risk but also that their are concerns that the self-aggrandising and controlling aspects of his personality are giving the authorities cause for concern. It seems plausible, even likely, that this might be the case, however, I can't find any link to a source for this info.

(please don't use this to launch into calls for 'prison justice')

 

No need.

Karma always gets its man.

[fishy_taste]

He wasn't convicted of manslaughter..He was in no fit state to have been driving...he was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving because of it.. that's if I remember correctly..

 

It is a form of manslaughter - it is not murder.

 

It was not proved that he intended to get in his car and fall asleep at the wheel, causing an accident that led to the deaths of a number of people.

 

Murder is where there was intent to kill, manslaughter (as a general legal term) is where a death or deaths occured as a consequence of an action or actions that were not intended to result in such an outcome.

 

Death by dangerous driving is not murder because the intent was not proved nor did it exist.

[algy]

I agree, hopefully when he becomes eligible for review the gravity of the offences will be at the forefront of thinking for the Parole Board.

 

The judge said she was obliged by law to set a minimum, but it was unlikely he would ever be released.