llamatron Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 I'm not entirely sure, it would depend on the circumstances I guess and the shooter's intentions. If he went to Meadowhall intending to kill some random person, that would be murder. If he went to Meadowhall with a gun and it went off by accident I guess that would be manslaughter. I think the weakness in your analogy is that a gun is intended to harm/kill people, Philpott as wicked as he is was trying to burn his house down, not kill his children, if the prosecution could have proved his intention was to burn his house down while his children remained inside it then the charge would probably have been escalated to murder. We don't know the evidence so forget the case for a moment. If I randomly fire an automatic gun around without aiming for anyone and kill someone is that manslaughter? If it is why is setting a fire at the only exit knowing people are upstairs sleeping different? Neither prove an intent to murder both are recklessly endangering people. Both are likely to result in death. The main difference seems to be that one is easier to prosecute as murder. He purposefully started a fire that he knew would endanger his children. Not only did he start it whilst they were sleeping but he also blocked the only exit they had. I don't think he was trying to kill them but I also don't think he cared that he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s2 blade Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 I agree which is why the range of sentencing options for manslaughter are the same as they are for murder, but usually in manslaughter there are mitigating circumstances that move the incarceration period downwards. ---------- Post added 05-04-2013 at 10:56 ---------- Are we finally on the same page s2blade? Reading the same damn lines baby ---------- Post added 05-04-2013 at 11:05 ---------- We don't know the evidence so forget the case for a moment. If I randomly fire an automatic gun around without aiming for anyone and kill someone is that manslaughter? If it is why is setting a fire at the only exit knowing people are upstairs sleeping different? Neither prove an intent to murder both are recklessly endangering people. Both are likely to result in death. The main difference seems to be that one is easier to prosecute as murder. He purposefully started a fire that he knew would endanger his children. Not only did he start it whilst they were sleeping but he also blocked the only exit they had. You answered your own question . He lit the fire with the intention of putting the children in danger ... Yes , his intention was to save the children therefore he wasn't committing murder . I think the man in question is a vile disgusting human being that should never see the free world again , but what he did wasn't murder it was manslaughter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Reading the same damn lines baby ---------- Post added 05-04-2013 at 11:05 ---------- You answered your own question . He lit the fire with the intention of putting the children in danger ... Yes , his intention was to save the children therefore he wasn't committing murder . I think the man in question is a vile disgusting human being that should never see the free world again , but what he did wasn't murder it was manslaughter That isn't my question. My question is about where "intent" starts. I don't think my automatic gun suggestion is any different intention wise. Its reckless endangerment that would probably result in death-its just much easier to prosecute as murder. His intention was never to save the children, you can't save people from a fire you purposefully started in order to endanger them. His intention was presumably to look like he had saved them. I guess the difference is often just the lack of proof of intent. I guess they get around that by having the longest sentences available for both. I am just interested in the legal distinction I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s2 blade Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 That isn't my question. My question is about where "intent" starts. I don't think my automatic gun suggestion is any different intention wise. Its reckless endangerment that would probably result in death-its just much easier to prosecute as murder. His intention was never to save the children, you can't save people from a fire you purposefully started in order to endanger them. His intention was presumably to look like he had saved them. I guess the difference is often just the lack of proof of intent. His intention was to save the children in the courts eyes . Hence the ladder to the window being in place and a dummy run of the terrible night it was planned for the children to be saved . Waving an automatic weapon around firing randomly is equally dangerous and I suppose there would have to be evidence you took aim and fired to get a murder charge . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 His intention was to save the children in the courts eyes . Hence the ladder to the window being in place and a dummy run of the terrible night it was planned for the children to be saved . Waving an automatic weapon around firing randomly is equally dangerous and I suppose there would have to be evidence you took aim and fired to get a murder charge . Well they concluded he started the fire so they know his intention was to look like he had saved them after putting them in danger. I think thats pretty conclusive. I think what you mean is that his intention was to get them out after recklessly endangering them which I am not disputing. Again, that wasn't my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 Both are likely to result in death. The main difference seems to be that one is easier to prosecute as murder. That's a good point, in this case you can imagine the public hysteria if the prosecution had run with a murder charge that the jury wouldn't have accepted because they were unable to prove 'intent' and Philpott had walked free? I'm sure that probably formed part of the prosecution's thinking especially as a life sentence option would be available to the presiding judge. The minimum (prison) sentence was probably lower than it might have been with a murder conviction although he might never get out in any event. My only grievance is a 15 year minimum sentence gives him hope, whereas a 30 year minimum wouldn't have, irrespective of the time he eventually serves inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 My only grievance is a 15 year minimum sentence gives him hope, It makes it worse when after 15 years that hope is taken away.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 That's a good point, in this case you can imagine the public hysteria if the prosecution had run with a murder charge that the jury wouldn't have accepted because they were unable to prove 'intent' and Philpott had walked free? I'm sure that probably formed part of the prosecution's thinking especially as a life sentence option would be available to the presiding judge. The minimum (prison) sentence was probably lower than it might have been with a murder conviction although he might never get out in any event. My only grievance is a 15 year minimum sentence gives him hope, whereas a 30 year minimum wouldn't have, irrespective of the time he eventually serves inside. I was listening to something on radio 4 where they said that the minimum sentence had to be half the determinate sentence that would have been given had she not given life which is an indeterminate sentence (I am unsure why but she said the determinate sentence would have been 30 years so the minimum had to be 15). I am guessing the maximum determinate sentence for manslaughter is 30 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 It makes it worse when after 15 years that hope is taken away.... Indeed, hopefully the public interest will be remembered and accounted for at that time. ---------- Post added 05-04-2013 at 11:36 ---------- I was listening to something on radio 4 where they said that the minimum sentence had to be half the determinate sentence that would have been given had she not given life which is an indeterminate sentence (I am unsure why but she said the determinate sentence would have been 30 years so the minimum had to be 15). I am guessing the maximum determinate sentence for manslaughter is 30 years? That's interesting, I hadn't heard that. There are murderers serving longer than 30 year minimum sentences and some on whole life tariffs, so I'm not sure where that leaves us, but it does sound a reasonable way of arriving at the minimum sentence for manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Moore Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 So each poor child's life is only worth for 2.5 years; why did they not get 6 life sentences? The corrupt copper gets 23 years but didn't kill anyone. Doesn't make sense; please explain? Perhaps you just need to get the facts right in the first place. If you are refering to Philpot he didn't murder anyone. He was found guilty on 6 charges of manslaughter and sentenced to a minimum tariff of 15 years, after which his case will be reviewed and he may or may not be released. The best copper selling heroine will probably be responsible for the loss of far more than 6 lives but was given a 23 year sentence that will be reviewed after perhaps 10 years when he could be released on parole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.