Life For Philpott

[hc4361]

Justice has been done.

[Barmaid]

Ummmm, he was sentenced to 4, but is likely to serve just over 2.

[anneasquith]

barmaid. only answer this q. if you wish. is the death penalty ever justified in britain ?

[Zeuhl]

/The land of the free, home of the brave/

yes em
I like visiting the states and have liked most americans i have met

but, for example, they espouse personal freedom and yet they are some of the most authority-respecting people ever
anyone in a uniform who says jump and they ask 'how high?'
my friends are always surprised/shocked by my British 'and who the hell are you?' reaction

Maybe it's a residue of a wild frontier life?

[emmie]

i think they are a land of massive contradictions, i too loved the time spent there, and the people were mostly warm and welcoming. Except perhaps the bar we waltzed into, full of moustachioed men, with scowls, and pints of that gnats pee they call beer, like a scene out of a Burt Reynolds film, just waited to see who would throw the first punch... x

[ummmm]

//barmaid. only answer this q. if you wish. is the death penalty ever justified in britain ? //

Can anyone else answer this question?

[emmie]

it would have been for Myra Hindley and Ian Brady.

[emmie]

But you can't do it, not if you want to be considered a civilised society, no matter what one thinks, and it isn't a deterrent.

[ummmm]

Where do you draw the line?

It would have been for the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6!!

[Barmaid]

My personal belief, Anne, is "no".

[emmie]

the line is already drawn, we don't have the death penalty now, and they won't ever bring it back. No matter what some think, and that as i have already said it isn't a deterrent, if it was those on death row in the USA wouldn't be there.

[Sparkles62]

Life with a minimum of 15 years, thats just over two years for each child,
I dont call that justice,
He murdered 6 innocent children, he should have been given 6 life sentances.
Would you be happy with the sentence if it was your children that he murdered and not his........I wouldn't be, he could be back out in 15 years.

[emmie]

the judge already said he will do 15 years, and won't come out before that time is up. The wife and the accomplice however have got 17 apiece but will serve half that, also i believe the judges remarks.

[Barmaid]

Sparkles, that is a fundamental misunderstanding. He did not murder those children since he never intended to kill them or do them harm. He was not convicted of murder. As it is, he has been given the maximum sentence allowable by law.

[Sparkles62]

I understand that Barmaid, but he did intentionally put all of their lives in danger, and it went wrong.
I know he intended to save them and make himself look like a hero, but as a Mum, I just can't understand how anyone could put their children in danger like that. X

[emmie]

no one can, no one with a care for their children, or with half a brain.

[EDDIE51]

Philpott's sentence means that the absolute minimum time untill it can be reviewed is 15 years. The Judge is compelled to give a review date and this is the longest possible time.
It is exceptionally unlikedly that the review will be any time near the minimum , it can not be until he has been assessed as ''No longer a risk'' .
Given what we have heard about him I can not see that happening , in this case I really think life will mean life.

[emmie]

as i mentioned he will be 71 or thereabout by the time he is released, so perhaps that is something for him to think about.

[MichaelZZ]

I think that the judge could have handled the sentencing rather differently. It would have been interesting if she had simply said, "You are guilty Mr Philpott. Now go home and don't do it again. Oh, and don't try to ask the police for protection because you won't get it. Good luck."