So, if not the Death Penalty, sterner and longer prison terms?

robel

Well-known Member
Last edited:

robel

Well-known Member
Never.

And certainly not for manslaughter.

Are you suggesting that the verdict of the above, despite it being manslaughter, is anything other than cold blooded murder? And yes I do understand the difference, in law.
 

Dave

Distinguished Member
Are you suggesting that the verdict of the above, despite it being manslaughter, is anything other than cold blooded murder? And yes I do understand the difference, in law.

Yes it's manslaughter and clearly you don't understand the difference in law or otherwise.

Hopefully the death penalty will never return to a civilised society as it's abhorrent and makes us all as guilty as the accused.
 

robel

Well-known Member

robel

Well-known Member
Yes it's manslaughter and clearly you don't understand the difference in law or otherwise.

Hopefully the death penalty will never return to a civilised society as it's abhorrent and makes us all as guilty as the accused.

Educate me, why is it considered manslaughter?
 
Never. Killing is wrong. State sponsored killing is wrong. Killing people because they killed people makes no sense and is still wrong. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
 

Dave

Distinguished Member
Educate me, why is it considered manslaughter?

Because there was no intention to kill or seriously injure the children. The "Mens Rea" or "Guilty Mind" wasn't there so it can't be murder.

It was manslaughter as the children died from Mick Philpott's actions even though he obviously had no intention to kill them. In this case it would be manslaughter by unlawful act.
 

robel

Well-known Member
Because there was no intention to kill or seriously injure the children. The "Mens Rea" or "Guilty Mind" wasn't there so it can't be murder.

It was manslaughter as the children died from Mick Philpott's actions even though he obviously had no intention to kill them. In this case it would be manslaughter by unlawful act.

I have issues with that explanation.
 

DPinBucks

Distinguished Member
Yes it's manslaughter and clearly you don't understand the difference in law or otherwise.

Hopefully the death penalty will never return to a civilised society as it's abhorrent and makes us all as guilty as the accused.
Thanks. You answered for me.
 

MikeTV

Well-known Member
I always find it somewhat bizarre that our legal system seems to sentence people on the basis of the consequences of someone's actions, rather than the intent. Take driving offences - it seems that if you drive at 35 mph and kill coach load of school kids, you may be imprisoned. Alternatively, you might drive at 35 mph, and simply receive a ticket. I'm not sure I understand the difference in the offences? I should say, I'm not claiming to have any in-depth of knowledge of these legal matters.
 

DarenD

Well-known Member
They both looked like a right pair but they didn't set out to kill their own kids.

Although I agree with the death penalty in say the cinema shootings in America these 2 should just get life.
 

Dave

Distinguished Member
I have issues with that explanation.

You may well have but it's still the law.

Were those children killed in the most tragic and stupid way? Yes they were.

Were they murdered? No.

It makes little odds either way whether they are convicted of manslaughter or murder because I would suggest that the sentences (particularly for Mick) will almost certainly be life anyway.
 

blue max

Distinguished Member
They both looked like a right pair but they didn't set out to kill their own kids.

Although I agree with the death penalty in say the cinema shootings in America these 2 should just get life.

For what purpose? Revenge?
 

bosque

Novice Member
Hang them and maybe 5 years later you might find out they were innocent after all, alas you can't bring back dead bodies.
 

Dave

Distinguished Member
I always find it somewhat bizarre that our legal system seems to sentence people on the basis of the consequences of someone's actions, rather than the intent.

I'd say that's an entirely correct approach. The vast majority of offences require a criminal act in conjunction with a state of mind to be complete. There are exceptions where omissions will amount to an offence and offences of strict liability where no state of mind at all is required.

Take for instance the recent-ish offence of causing death by careless driving. The offence needs 2 elements, careless driving and death caused by it to anyone other than the driver.

Careless driving is a very very easy offence to commit, if someone happens to die because of it you can now go to prison for a very simple driving error. That to me is a step too far but shows what a crazy legal system we'd have if offences were all based on state of mind only.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Q Acoustics Q3030i, Humax Aura, Roku Streambar & WandaVision Reviews and more...

Latest News

What's new on Disney+ UK for February 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Focal releases 1000 Series integrated speakers
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Klipsch announces ProMedia 2.1 BT speaker set
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
No Time to Die gets pushed to 8th Oct 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
KEF announces KC62 subwoofer with new Uni-Core technology
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom