AIBU to be utterly shocked at how light the Philpotts' sentences are?

[Cuddlydragon]

That 's it really.

Dunno, but YABU to have started the 7th Philpott thread in Active Conversations.

Sadly, I haven't been shocked at sentencing for a little over 20 years.

Are you the topic police nottreadinggrapes?

Kansas that's just how sentencing works. It's not Philpott specific.

No but I should be.

i want to know what the fucking point is in giving two of them 17yrs and saying they'll only serve half.

I know what you mean. It seems strange that when someone's sentenced, it's made clear that they'll only serve about half the time. Why not just sentence them to the likely number of years they will actually serve?? Am speaking generally here btw. I think Mairead Philpott and that other bloke should be inside for more than 8.5 years.

Cuddly, the case was considered very carefully by people qualified to understand the law and to know what sentences they are actually allowed to give in light of the crime that has been commited. Maybe they should dispense with all that though and just ask someone on the street who might have only read a couple of tabloids but definitely has an opinion on how long the bastards should rot for!

It is very useful to have people still on licence or parole when they leave prisons. They can be monitored, conditions can be set and they can be recalled to custody if they offend. If they served the whole sentence 'inside' and were not given 'life' (in which case they are a different case) they would be 'free' when they got out and there would be less control.

Sentences should still be longer for a lot of offences.

There is a good reason for the principle of only serving half a sentence.

A person gets to come out after half provided they have behaved well inside. Bad behaviour means the prison can add some of the time back on. Without this incentive then there would be much more rioting and trouble inside prison than there is - I'm not saying there is none but it could be worse.

Also when released early it's on licence. The sentence still exists until the end of the full term and so the person is subject to probation until the whole sentence is up and is therefore monitored.

None of the above is a comment on the individual case or the length of those sentences, I'm merely highlighting that there is a reason for the sentences being expressed in the way that they are.

Yanbu. Justice in this country is a joke.

Thanks yousank. I said I was shocked. I wasn't criticising anything, just that I was shocked at 6 lives being worth about 8 years to 2 people and 15 to another. The legal system should actually speak for the society, so I think my opinion is valid.

Judges have to adhere to strict guidlines (set down by Government!!!!) when sentencing, perhaps the OP should remember that and appreciate that they were found guilty of manslaughter, not murder, and Phillpot was probably given the maximum scentence allowable.

Thanks for explaining it lady macbeth, that does make sense.

I too was surprised at the brevity

It's odd, in many ways his sentence of 7 years for attempted murder and GBH with a knife on 2 women, 35 years ago is even more lenient.

What shocks me is that they were not also charged with arson with intent to endanger life.

I have no doubt they would have been found guilty and I think the judge could have given higher sentences in that circumstance.

Thanks oldwoman. Lots of exclamation marks and pointing out the guidelines are government issued, doesn't mean I shouldn't be surprised about how little time was handed down. I think it's too little. I didn't assign blame as to why that was. In his case, each child costs him 2 ish years of his life.

I'm not sure what Mosley's involvement was, but possibly he should have got life too.

Genius!

And that, thank God, is why the general public do not hand down sentences.

Yes, I saw that you said possibly. How very lenient of you.

You do admit you have no idea what he actually did though, so it still makes me laugh that you feel qualified to comment on his sentence at all.

This legal blog gives a pretty good explanation of the sentencing and how in fact Philpott got the heaviest sentence ever imposed for manslaughter. If it had been found to be murder it would have been higher, but of course the whole point was meant to be that he would be the big hero and rescue them.