To think Lucy Letby should be made to attend court for the sentencing

[Viviennemary]

I know there are other threads on this terrible case. But I just read she has refused to attend court for the sentencing which is to be on Monday morning. The judge said he does not have the power to force her to attend. Can't see she will ever be allowed out of prison. And rightly so.

Anyone who posts as you do has a distinct lack of critical or any other sort of thinking. How dare you spout that anybody who doesn't think in a half-witted, pitchfork-branding way is in any way a 'sympathiser'?

Who has done this?

All people have pointed out is the evils involved in physically forcing people to attend sentencing hearings, and the precedent it sets.

We’ve just seen The Court of Appeal overturn Andy Malkinson’s conviction. Now imagine he had refused to attend and listen to impact statements because as far as he was concerned he hadn’t done anything wrong, should he have been tasered, strapped to a board or gagged?
Absolute nonsense.

And before the hyperbole starts, I’m not saying Lucy Letby is innocent, however, some people are.

How can that possibly be justified? If someone refuses to attend because they are genuinely innocent, it would clearly be absolutely wrong to prevent them from appealing.

@BloodyPrime it's not about her listening to those statements it's about her being present. The choice to be there or not shouldn't even be a thing and whoever made that rule I'd say is very disrespectful towards the family's of these scum her get to have a choice.

And to answer your second question. It's their job! They chose that role just like police/fire/security and any other profession that's dangerous chose theirs. No one's forced them to be there.

You could just read the thread?

Many posters gave explained.

It’s also a really good point that LL, a seemingly remorseless woman, will feel nothing attending her sentencing. She will likely be stoic and unmoved. How is that helpful to the victims’ families?

@peanutcrumble no one is showing sympathy for LL at all.
It's different from defending all our human rights. Be very careful what you wish for when you suggest there are people who are sub human and don't deserve to be treated as such.

Anyway. She has a whole life order for each and ever offence. She will die in prison. For those gleeful at the thought of her being harmed - I assure you she will get it in prison.

anyone who fights for human rights for anyone who does these despicable crimes are sympathisers. They don't have humanly emotions and feelings so why we saying it's her right to not attend

So human rights depend on what crime you commit now and how emotional you are at your trial?

You need to be grateful to people who fight for human rights, not brand them sympathisers. One day it might be your's that they are defending; because either everyone has human rights or no-one has them.

No, she didn't have to attend the whole trial. If a defendant refuses to attend the trial, it can go on without them. Most obviously want to as it is their last chance to avoid conviction.

You are an idiot.

I know you can’t help it, but if you sat down and kept your mouth shut you would be less of an embarrassment to yourself.

People are saying you can't just force someone to go somewhere even in this situation. Well you can. They force people to go to prison who don't want to go.
For what is worth I don't agree they should force her/ anyone to go to the sentencing. Mainly because of the disruption it could cause if the person says something awful or starts trying to hurt themselves.
But the fact remains that people can and are forced to do things that include being physically forced if necessary. So if the law was to change that they needed to attend then yes they could well be physically forced to go. The same way they would be physically forced to go to prison.

Whole life. Good

In my view, elective non-attendance at Sentencing, by the convicted party, ought to carry with it, an understanding/acceptance which 'Excludes the future possibility of an Appeal being made or a Re-trial considered' - for example where a miscarriage of justice is later considered/deemed/proposed, or, where any type of 'new evidence' comes to light

So anyone imprisoned by a miscarriage of justice - like Andy Malkinson - who is innocent and make the only protest they can by not attending sentencing - can rot in prison for the rest of their lives?

Thank goodness your view is unlikely to prevail.

If you are prepared to kill and maim small babies and then lie about it consistently, why would you feel shame at being sentenced? And you would probably welcome any disruption to your day, you are looking at a very long and very boring stretch of prison for years to come. Many would, sadly, also welcome the chance to torture their victims' relatives further.

OK you tell me how you personally would manhandle a 6’4” 20 stone psychopathic murderer into court if they didn’t want to go?

What would you then do if they stood up and shouted over the victim impact statements or even worse laughed and made jokes about them?

Instead of making statements and expecting others to deal with the consequences- tell me how you would achieve it in a way that didn’t cause more distress to the victim’s families?

That's true, nobody forces them to be there. With that in mind, what are you going to do about people voting with their feet? And recruiting? Also, can you tell us how you'll deal with the legal claims when more of them are attacked, and where the money will come from for the early retirements due to the increase in injuries? Perhaps you can put your assets up as collateral.

I'm glad you've finally spelled out how few fucks you give about the people you think would do the heavy lifting in your fantasy, though. It was obvious anyway, but good that you've made it clear. They're just cosplayers in your fantasy. And you think you're qualified to moralise!

Let’s say “Human rights don’t apply to these groups: child killers, rapists etc”. Meaning those people aren’t protected, aren’t entitled to medical care, to be saved in a fire by firefighters etc. You’d probably be OK with what YOU think is immoral. But some people genuinely think gay people are as immoral as murderers. Or women who drive, or have sex. Or disabled children. These are genuine beliefs and opening up the removal of human rights from certain groups puts ALL vulnerable groups at risk. Which is why it’s better to have a blanket, objective rule on human rights for humans. It’s a better country to live in. I’m not interested in some dystopian Black Mirror bullshit society. That’s not to say I feel sympathy for LL. I don’t. I’m just spelling out what no human rights means.

Weetabix Towels I fully agree with what you say. Social media is turning our Justice system into a Revenge system with people screaming to have laws changed due to several high profile cases. The people who commit these dreadful crimes are evil or ill but they are still humans with rights if we try to strip these rights away where will it end

Nobody is ‘gleeful’ about these horrendous crimes and serial killer. What a strange choice of word you chose to use.

People are horrified, they can’t get their heads around it. Nobody is pleased. Are you quite alright?

Because of the risk involved that’s usually only in the interest of public protection. Watching her sentencing is not in the interest of public protection

Try reading the thread. The difference between throwing a prisoner in a cell and getting them up stairs to a dock and keeping them there reasonably under control has been set out.

Here is the prison officer who was kicked to death moving an inmate.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/12/07/prison-guard-kicked-to-death-by-inmate-who-lashed-out-with-no-warning-17894819/

Speaking of the importance of looking people in the eye, those of you who don't give a fuck about her welfare or that of people doing the same job as her can practice what you preach here.

I'm sorry?! She lost any rights when she committed those murders!!