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.

People saying you think she should be forced to,listen to the witness statements?

You're thinking about this from your own pov, how you think you'd feel hearing those statements.

But she clearly isn't like you. She carried out those actions, over and over. She may well get a thrill hearing them rather than the remorse and upset many posters seem to think will happen. She might just sit there humming away in her head, smirking or grinning, not giving two hoots of what the parents are going through. How does that benefit the parents? To see someone sat not caring about that they say? If anything it could make the whole ordeal even harder.

You can't force a killer to care about their victims.
Even dragging them out by their hair, as some posters want, doesn't mean they will care.

Quite possibly the best thing now is for the sentence to be done and for her to be locked away indefinitely. Her name and face no longer dominating the news of the events. Left to play out her life behind bars with her name kept out of it. Not for her sake - but because quite often killers seek the notoriety and the publicity, so taking that away means they can't feel the thrill of hearing themselves spoken about.

It's time for the families and the victims to be the one remembered. For their stories to be heard, for their children's stories to be known.
For their children's names to be the one that are remembered.

But why though? I mean, you're right, that could probably be done - though it would involve some costs to allow for the technology, and again, she'd have to be restrained in some way so that she stays on camera and 'looking'. She still can't be forced to listen/watch because she can close her eyes and concentrate on something other than listening. She could spend the time smirking, laughing, making gestures. Who does that benefit?
So I don't really understand what is to be gained by her being there via video link (or in person) - other than appeasing some sort of belief that she 'should be there'.
(Also, can you imagine the faffing 'you're on mute!' 'oh, wait, the internet has dropped out - hang on everyone while we sort the connection')

As a matter of law passed by our Parliament, no, she didn't. If you want a system whereby people convicted of serious offences have no human rights, would you want that to apply to you given that no-one can guarantee that they will avoid wrongful convictions?

If you want a system where everyone convicted of murder automatically loses all human rights, where does that leave us with people like Andrew Malkison, Sally Clarke, Angela Canning, Stefan Kiszko? If we had then away their rights, the chances are that they would all have been killed in prison without any chance to prove their innocence.

If you set up a system where convicts people automatically lose all their rights and therefore the weaker ones won't survive any sentence, you will find juries increasingly unwilling to convict. That is what happened in the days of death sentences, so it would undoubtedly happen again now.

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

As this keeps being brought up….
How will the prison officers protect her?
Will she be kept in solitary for her own protection?

There have been many reports of misconduct by prison officers towards inmates. What steps are taken to prevent this?

Isn't that a bit pointless if in effect they have a mental barrier which means the shame you throw slides harmlessly off them? Or indeed if they enjoy it?

Human rights means that the only qualification needed to have those rights is the fact of being human. Additional rights accrue to those who aren't criminals but if something is a human right then it cannot be lost. Any rights that are removed from convicted criminals will also be removed from the wrongfully convicted, and from those who are convicted of crimes which are generally understood to be "the best they could have done under the circumstances" (eg if someone is convicted of manslaughter where the circumstances are such that it wasn't far off from being what might be considered "lawful killing" or "self defense" but for some detail that made the manslaughter charge stick.) - so no I don't want anyone to lose their human rights. The justice system isn't perfect, and does make mistakes. You cannot make good law from a place of emotive hatred of the evil done by one criminal.

How does audio in the cell set an example to anyone? By definition it's not public.

It's not something I actually object to, because it least it doesn't entail expecting prison officers to risk their lives. But I don't understand the point. Presumably no-one could stop her sitting there with her fingers in her ears and singing? How would victims feel if they heard she sat there laughing as if she was hearing a funny story and begging for it all to be played again? Or, worse, if she was using it all as some sort of sexual stimulant?

you think a convict suddenly develops more power to kick someone to death after spending a few weeks or months on remand?

if we are able to apprehend people in the first place then we are able to move them to where they need to go

or at least force them to be in a room where the sentencing is played on a screen

When I read out mine, he just smirked all the way through it and laughed at the end. I'd rather he hadn't been there at all if I'm honest. It felt like he was attacking me all over again.

There could be a camera in the cell that is played to the court so that the judge and public gallery can see their reactions

they could be handcuffed so that they can’t stick fingers in ears

if the convict starts making rude gestures the court officials could turn the video off so the gallery can’t see but the convict never knows if they are being seen or not.

if they shout then the audio to the court can be turned off

meantime the court audio is continually played to the convict

it takes their power away

You can prove anything with facts

you are a SYMPATHISER And i think you are DISCUSTING

Am I doing this right?

She may well get a thrill hearing them rather than the remorse and upset many posters seem to think will happen. She might just sit there humming away in her head, smirking or grinning, not giving two hoots of what the parents are going through

in Letby’s case specifically I don’t think those scenarios are likely based on the fact she refused to go to the sentencing. To me that indicates there’s a degree of shame and/or understanding of the gravity the consequences of her actions on her part. Certainly a denial of the reality that is currently happening.

We don’t know enough about her motivations or thought processes to make that kind of call tbh. The victim statements are essentially evidence of the repercussions of her actions and she should hear them in the same way she’s heard the rest of the evidence. I genuinely didn’t realise that it is so easy to simply refuse to attend your own trial but that does leave victims with questions about watching the reactions of the person who’s harmed them which I recognise is important. No reaction or ‘mocking’ gives a point where perhaps victims can let go of an element of their anger about not getting an admission or any remorse because it’s clear that the perpetrator just doesn’t care. It makes that more real.

How does anyone know what shame a person feels?

Letby might have felt shame not about the babies, but about the affect on her own parents. She might have felt shame to know that her lover, friends and colleagues were hearing what she was hearing and would now be disgusted by her. She wanted to be nice Lucy.

every single murder case is different and it’s very sweeping to assume all murder convicts won’t feel some shame.

as a society we have a duty to try

it might not work and truth is we’ll never know as many will have crocodile tears. But it’s the victims only chance to inflict that upon them so they should have the opportunity. They should also have the opportunity to control what they see by use of technology. It gives the family all the power and the convict none

@thedancingbear @blubberyboo in all honesty if you think about it you and some other posters seem similar to LL rather than the people you're accusing of being sympathisers. I don't want to hurt or harm anyone or make other nameless employees and guards torture prisoners. Those are not far off the kind of things LL has actually been convicted of.
What kind of punishment would satisfy you? If it's the death penalty just come out and say it

I agree. We should also cut off their eyelids so they can't help looking at the victim's faces.

Fucking mental. Honestly.

What the actual fuck are you talking about?

don’t dare put words in my mouth

Ismu, I had hoped it was clear enough that I was taking the piss. I agree with you that this thread is bringing out the nutters in force.

She might have felt shame to know that her lover, friends and colleagues were hearing what she was hearing and would now be disgusted by her. She wanted to be nice Lucy

if the seeking attention accusations are correct I do feel that this is a possibility. I don’t know how I’d feel about that if I were the one of the families though.

Sorry @thedancingbear if you were being sarcastic, it didn't come across that way, so much hate here

Ismu, I had hoped it was clear enough that I was taking the piss. I agree with you that this thread is bringing out the nutters in force.
Huge apologies@thedancingbear it absolutely is.
How am I putting words in your mouth @blubberyboo you've suggested that we actually strap someone's hands down and stop them from covering their ears. That's actually torture.

This is a silly post.

Having the resources to apprehend a person doesn't then mean the resources also exist to move them from a prison to a court if they're kicking off. There's no rule where capacity in the system is magically created when someone gets convicted. We don't have a magic wand.

Also why would spending time on remand need to make someone more likely to kick an officer to death? Is the risk before going on remand not sufficient?

Are you for real?

dangerous prisoners are kept in handcuffs all the time! Half an hour is not torture

you then accused me of wanting the death sentence

slide on

Don't pass the buck, you are the one saying it is so important for the criminal to hear.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and humming is a pretty effective way to block out most speech, no need to hurt anyone's throat. Even if you handcuff the criminal, lots of people are very well able to compartmentalise and just not listen. I do it regularly with FIL.

I wonder how you would deal with deaf criminals?

Well then it’s certainly not any worse than giving someone a page to read is it?

and therefore just holds the same point or more if it means something to the family

what would YOU do with blind prisoners?

FFS I think the powers that be could be creative for such exception

Must admit, dancingbear, I thought you must be having an off-day as I've never seen you post like a moron. I too missed the fact that you were taking the piss.

The nutters though... they'll be taking that eyelid removal suggestion made in jest from another poster, and be firing off an illiterate missive to the Daily Mail by bedtime today...