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.

I have sat in a court in sentencing and heard a judge sentence someone who caused harm to my children.

I studied their faces as they heard the victim statements, saw the tiny flickers of emotion. I watched them as he issued the sentences and believe me, watching them hear what they were facing, seeing the light of hope go out in their eyes - that helps. Doesn't make it better, but it feels good.

She should have been made to be in court, fucking coward.

Letby might not, but if you are going to say that all convicts have to be in court for sentencing it's not hard to work out that some very nasty people are highly likely to put up a fight. Should we have different rules for thugs?

There and pros and cons in making a statement as a victim. It’s interesting once you start looking into it.

Ultimately people are offered, but not compelled, to have their say in court as part of the process of achieving justice. Regardless of what a criminal may take from the words it’s generally important to the person who has participated in the opportunity that they hear their words. I don’t believe that Letby, or any other criminal, should be facilitated in hiding from the consequences of their actions.

If you have to change the established meaning of well-known English words like "sympathiser" to suit your arguments, you really are admitting defeat.

What a horrible experience @FrillyGoatFluff I'm glad you felt this helped you.
The perpetrator in your case obviously felt guilt of some kind and even by attending sentencing they showed this.
If someone declines to attend sentencing they aren't going to be in a place to face up to their responsibility and dragging them in isn't going to fix that, it might make it horrendously worse.

Quite ironic that this post should appear two posts below the one linking to the report of a prison officer being kicked to death by an inmate whilst escorting them.

Do you think that might just be a reason why this can't happen? To say nothing of the further reasons explained on this thread that you haven't bothered to read.

Yes.

And I think a lot or people don't understand what fundamental human rights are, how they should apply to all humans regardless of how we judge individuals and how they benefit all of us

But also, have literally nothing to do with LL not attending court for sentencing but a lot of people seem to be frothing about it and claiming people are protecting her rights when that has nothing to do with UK criminal justice law or the human rights act.

A judge can make an order that a defendant should attend court. This is passed to a prison governor who has to assess the risks involved.

So they wouldn't want to risk death or injury to the inmate or staff so they usually won't do it. Which is legal and entirely appropriate.

Sorry to all you posters who don't care about staff so long as you'd get to see LL reactions.

By definition that means you are saying "So be it" to the high probability of prison officers being killed and maimed.

Could you explain how you justify that?

This is not primarily about human rights, it's about practicability, which you seem determined to ignore.

Or do you think prison officers' rights should be left at the door also?

Can you explain why it seems to make such a difference to you personally?

Actually she didn’t- she didn’t lose the right to a fair trial; or the freedom from inhumane treatment (even in the context of her evil crimes).
Because throwing out the right to a fair trial is the end of democracy. It’s basic stuff.

@ismu no, no guilt - just a misguided confidence that they were going to walk away scotfree and enjoyment of the drama, despite pleading guilty (although this was apparently because they thought they'd make the 'process quicker'). Pair of idiots.

I 100% agree with what everyone is saying with regards to safety of staff having to come first. But really, how have we come to this? It shouldn't be an option. Human rights are one thing, the rules of the court of the land is another. My children didn't have a choice about not attending when it comes to being called to give statements - they're the rules, you obviously abide by them. They had to do it. I fail to see why not attending for sentencing should even be an option?

Sedate her and force her there if need be. She had no human rights left.There's always a way. The thing is. She's obviously so mentally unwell that im not sure she would feel empathy towards the families or remorse.

You really need to proofread your posts. As that first paragraph stands, you're calling the babies "scum".

Prison officers accept the dangers involved in keeping convicted criminals in custody, and we still really struggle to recruit and keep them. They do not accept unnecessary risks. If we make them take totally avoidable risks just for the satisfaction of baying Daily Mail headline writers and their less critical readers, how many do you imagine are going to stay in the job?

This thread 😳

Who would sedate her? No medical professional would do it as there is no medical need. Would you have an untrained person sedate her? What if they got it wrong and she was too lively or slept through the whole hearing? What if it caused her harm and she successfully claimed compensation?

Guess what, even prisoners have human rights.

So she's sedated and therefore barely conscious - what even is the point? You might as well just bring a cut out of her in to the court if you're going to do that.

Sorry you've been through that but I think anyone expecting this evil piece of shit to feel any 'emotion' in this context is misguided.

We have a rule of law. Let go of that and we have nothing.

The post was in response to someone asking why not force them because we currently force people to attend trial and it doesn't cause problems. So I pointed out that we don't force people to attend trial.

Yes, we can physically force people to be there if we are willing to put prison officers' lives at risk and can recruit officers who are happy to be put in that situation. But that then brings into play the next bit, about it not causing problems, because obviously it can and probably would. None of them seem justifiable when put in comparison with the highly dubious benefits of forcing convicts to attend.

Because sometimes reality is unpalatable. We don't have a mechanism for forcing dangerous prisoners to be somewhere they don't want to be, without significantly endangering the staff who have to make them. It doesn't exist, which is the reason so many prison staff are seriously assaulted, and occasionally killed on the job.

Yeah, it would be great if it weren't this way. It would also be great if nobody ever committed those sort of crimes in the first place, while I've got my magic wand out, but this is the reality we're stuck with.

There are certainly people who are gleeful at the prospect of Letby being attacked in prison.

From what I understand she almost certainly is not ‘mentally ill’. She’s a human being. One capable of atrocious acts.

I also agree there is no point in sedating her. If she was wheeled in half conscious she will be viewed with more sympathy than someone fully aware.

Given the ease with which you dismiss human rights I suspect you don’t fully comprehend what they are. funnily enough this thread is only here because someone found it easy to dismiss the human rights of others.

What’s the point of having her sedate if she’s there? She can’t hear if she’s asleep.

And she does have human rights. Her legal rights are just restricted as if everyone’s at HMP

I think she should at least have to attend through a live video link , there can be no excuse for that .

I think it's right that she can't be forced to attend. The fact that she choses not to attend can and should be used as evidence that she hasn't engaged with the enormity of her crimes and any kind of remorse is a long long way off from her current state of mind - in the unlikely event that she is ever considered for release, that should be taken into account as reasons why she shouldn't be. I hope that recordings of todays testimony are permanently kept and available such that Lucy can never claim that she "regrets" this decision without it being very clear that she can and should engage with them and listen to them because they will always be available to her.