When Manslaughter means Murder

phillpot-house-fire2by Sam Swerling.

Michael Philpott’s appalling and criminal behaviour needs no further discussion except in one respect.  How is it that he came to be charged with the lesser crime of manslaughter rather than murder, which was the charge originally brought by the prosecuting authorities?

It is argued that Philpott lacked the intention to kill his six children and that he, his wife and accomplice Paul Mosley would rush into the house after the arson and rescue them.

He may not have had a specific, defined intention to kill but there is another type of intention which is part of the criminal law and rests on common sense. It is that a person who engages in a reckless action, such that the natural consequence of their action is to bring about death must be presumed to have intended such consequences.  Philpott must have known that his children could die in such a dangerous venture.

The BDP’s position is quite clear; that at the very least a wide-ranging and informed debate needs to take place abour reintroducing the death penalty if not for all murders then for some, perhaps on the lines of the Homicide Act of 1957, where six categories of killing carried the death penalty (until abolished in 1965.)

My feeling is that Philpott and co deserved to hang!

10 thoughts on “When Manslaughter means Murder

  1. I totally agree. There’s a major court case on at the moment concerning the presumed abduction and murder of a child (no names, no pack drill). Should the accused be found guilty then I believe that life imprisonment is not enough. The punishment should fit the crime.

  2. I have thought for a long time that all the emphasis is now on the criminal & his feelings. He/she is seen as a ‘real’ person, as people try to understand ‘why?’ The victim is secondary, almost a non-person, not there anymore, unable to ask ‘why me?’
    I feel that it is a waste of time trying to get inside the mind of a psychopathic killer, or a person so sociopathic that the victim’s feelings are an irrelevance to him/her. Some people are evil, full stop.
    The emphasis should, in my opinion, be on Justice for the victims & their families. The Human Rights act has a lot to answer for, & has denied justice to many, with reasons given which are ridiculous & nonsensical.
    If a BDP Government ever came to power, then perhaps a referendum on the Death Penalty would be a good thing.
    Fear has disappeared almost completely from our lives, fear of God, fear of punishment as the punishment is no longer harsh, even fear of the police & of what the neighbours might say or think.
    As far as murder is concerned, I think Fear ought to be re-introduced.

    1. The police and judicial system are untrust-worthy and corrupt.Never allow capital punishment……what makes anyone think they could get THAT right…..Rick

  3. Mo,sentiments shared by all however I disagree that we should put the question of the Death penalty to the people,why bother, the people elect Governments to govern ie introduce Laws that will enhance the quality of life for the majority.We all know that 95% of the people would bring back Capital punishment for murder let a Nationalist Government give them just that.Part of the reason we are in this bloody mess is because we lack strong Governmental leadership,this is our trump card we can and will rip up there rule book and govern for the people.

    1. I can understand where you are coming from in this regard, Graham, however in the interests of obtaining the wildest possible support for our new nationalist party it is a good idea to put it to a referendum after having had a full and frank national debate on the matter.

      Not all nationalists support the death penalty and if we have a manifesto pledge to re-introduce it then those nationalists (and people we hope to convince to become nationalists) might not vote for our party..

      Also, saying we will carry-out a referendum will help to deflect the inevitable accusations from the hard-left that such a policy is ‘fascist’
      AND symptomatic of a ‘fascist’ party.

      I have always been a supporter of the death penalty for particularly
      heinous crimes as I suspect most nationalists are.

  4. Death Penalty.

    Mo makes (I feel) some good points in his post about the lack of fear of retribution in todays society. In particular the section about justice for victims and their families. There should be a referendum on Capital Punishment I agree but I feel it should be expanded a little. The victims families (where possible) should have the option of being involved if they wanted to, even up to the point of “pulling the lever” so to speak. Call it natural justice or revenge, whatever you want.
    Or is that too controversial?

  5. I am in favour of bringing back capital punishment, I propose the lethal injection – which I believe is the method used in all (most?) the states of the USA that use the death penalty.

    Philpott is despicable, given his fairly advanced age (and I would assume that he’s a smoker), hopefully he will die in prison.

    1. Yes, this is the method that is most used in the USA now. However, it isn’t a good method as too many executions in America have been bungled due to it. My preference is for the restoration of the rope. Before we abolished it here, we had got the art of judicial hangings down to a fine art form. You have to be seriously incompetent to mess-up a long-drop hanging.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United Kingdom


  6. I’m uncomfortable with the death penalty due to its’ obvious finality. In recent years a significant number of people have been released from prison after convictions were overturned as ‘unsafe’. These include cases where information was incorrectly interpreted, tests conducted by unsupervised trainees, and the manipulation and withholding of evidence by typically psychopathic police officers intent only on career advancement. I believe that a life sentence should mean exactly that; the individual should die in prison. Sex offenders of all categories should be culled from prisons and relocated to prison ships anchored in the North Sea. There would be no need for guards as there is nowhere to which to escape. Supplies would be helecoptered in on a monthly basis. Those sufficiently naive to believe they can effect positive change are welcome to row out to try. Thus prison overcrowding would be reduced and space created for other categories of criminal. Terrorists would be held in camps guarded by the military (redeployed from illegal foreign wars) for the duration of their life sentence. Just a personal opinion; but surely better than the current situation?

Leave a Reply