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.

If you had read any posts you would realise with the wonders of modern technology could deal with many of the risks simple by keeping the person in their cell

my point on that post was that all around the world dangerous prisoners are apprehended but apparently getting them to court creates a sudden new risk

if a risk assessment was carried out on Letby I don’t think she’d be capable of killing a few strong male prisoners

Prison officers*

I think she should have been forced to attend.

As she has still not admitted to her crimes I think she's probably ashamed of what her friends and family think. However it doesn't look like any colleagues came to her defence during the trial and I assume that the only people that may stick by her now are her parents. Although i should imagine they will lose a lot of friends too if they stick by her.

@blubberyboo ok, you want people to be restrained for 2 hours while they are made to listen to audio, and sometimes video, handcuffs alone aren't going to do it so something more efficient will need to be used, eg straps, someone will need to supervise this and monitor the prisoner's responses and judge when to switch on / off video and audio to the court. This sounds very similar to psychological torture.
If the prisoner is in any way violent or dangerous this could require further restraint, and significant risk to staff and possibly the prisoner too. Once you've gone down this route where do you go from here?

If you had read any posts you would see that the risk to prison and police officers of apprehending dangerous criminals is worth it because of the risk to the public if they don't go. The risk of getting an unwilling criminal in to court is not worth it because there is no risk to the general public if she doesn't go.

And if we change the law, we change the law for ALL prisoners, not just Letby. So that she might not be capable of causing harm, that doesn't mean other prisoners wouldn't be capable.

How would you have felt if you saw none of that? If the person you were watching showed no remorse or emotion? Or, worse, if they seemed to be enjoying it? Or if they started shouting and screaming obscene insults about you and your children?

As for the light of hope, LL knew what was coming as soon as she was convicted. That was the moment to see any "light of hope" go out.

If you had read any posts you would realise with the wonders of modern technology could deal with many of the risks simple by keeping the person in their cell

Yes it could be played in the cell and if you think it's a good idea then set up a campaign for it. It's certainly less violent than some of the other suggestion made...

But that doesn't guarantee the detainee watches/listens to it but thats just the way it is

my point on that post was that all around the world dangerous prisoners are apprehended but apparently getting them to court creates a sudden new risk

It's not about a new risk its about a justification of the risk. Risking officers lives to arrest violent criminals is an understood level of risk because it protects the public from the violent criminals

Dragging an unwilling and violent detainee to a sentencing protects no one whilst placing the officers at risk

Do you really not care about the officers and their families?

if a risk assessment was carried out on Letby I don’t think she’d be capable of killing a few strong male prisoners

If you change a law for one person you change it for everyone. So Letby might not kill someone but a 6ft 6 20 stone ex rugby player might. And unless you are fine with women being dragged somewhere but not men then you have to think of the risks from all detainees.

I'm assuming the prisoners in your last sentence was a mistake and you meant to say officers?

You're clearly talking about what happens when we don't use modern technology, though. Hence your comment about the risks of people being kicked to death.

And of course bringing people to court when they don't want to come is a risk. You can't possibly think otherwise.

Also, why do you think multiple strong male prisoners are going to be present, and why is mass murder the barometer here? What about just injuring a couple to the extent that they're off sick for a few months, or quit altogether? Or murdering just the one, like poor Lorraine Barwell?

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

Although i should imagine they will lose a lot of friends too if they stick by her.

It depends what sticking by her means?
If they protest her innocence to all who will listen, then yes they will lose friends.

They will lose some friends by their association to her.
They will lose some friends because people won’t have a clue what to say to them.
But maintaining contact with their only daughter doesn’t mean they support her actions. Love is unconditional. Their lives are ruined. In these cases, you often read that one parent gets seriously ill due to the stress they are going through.

If they aren’t protesting her innocence, it is hard to feel anything but pity and sorrow for them. They have lost their only daughter and they will be aware and live with the knowledge of the grief and bereavement of all the families. It’s possible they will question themselves for something they did/didn’t do when raising her.

What on earth does anyone gain from having someone drugged to the eyeballs sitting in the dock? That's taking pointless gestures to an extreme.

Video link at the very least, additional sentence for non-attendance would work for all but crimes that carry life sentences.

All the risks that you talk of are still there at present

Letby still had to be brought from her prison to the court today. The current rules mean that the prison must send her to court. She had to be put in a van, driven there, taken out of the van and taken to a cell.

she wasn’t being arrested today so it wasn’t like we were taking a dangerous criminal off the streets today.

That mean all those guards today were at risk from all the thing you talked of

Using technology as I have outlined would actually further reduce the risk to prison officers

And as I said in the post you are responding to:

If you think it's a good idea then set up a campaign for it.

Reading some of these suggestions sounds like a Black Mirror episode and then I remembered they’ve already done it with White Bear.
It’s disturbing.

Prisoners are still brought to the courts today

letby was brought there today due to the current rules whereby prisons must send the prisoner

If you are seeking to eliminating all risk to the officers then you need to be advocating that they are not even removed from their remand prison to be sent to court.

That's the episode I've had in my head whilst reading these suggestions

Incredibly disturbing

If someone is wrongfully convicted then forcing them to sit through an emotive victim impact statement session would be psychological torture. I don't think LL is innocent at all, but I don't want anything to happen to her that I wouldn't be OK with happening to me if I got wrongfully convicted of something due to a miscarriage of justice. I would want to be treated with respect and human dignity and kept safe from harm. Deprivation of liberty is bad enough without being strapped down and forced to listen to/watch anything at all. The Clockwork Orange isn't supposed to be an instruction manual, it's an illustration of a dystopian nightmare scenario. Some miscarriages of justice aren't proven for many years. There was a recent case of a man who spent 17 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit but eventually DNA evidence linked the crime to a totally different person.

I don’t need to thanks

Many experts were already discussing it in news reports today

I’m not claiming credit for the idea

This is another silly post.

Let's agree there's a risk every time a prisoner is moved. That means an increase in the number of times they're moved clearly increases the risk to staff. Not giving a shit about that risk because hey, there's no way to remove it entirely is as fuckwitted as leaving your front door wide open because you can't completely remove the risk of burglary.

The onus is on those people who want to expose prison and court staff to this increased risk not only to justify it, but explain how it would be managed practically in a system where we already don't have enough of them. That will not be done with strawmen about removing the risk entirely, which everyone agrees is impossible.

We know that convicts have the power to kick someone to death. It has happened. Being on remand doesn't prevent people from taking exercise and keeping their muscles fully developed - rather the reverse, as they have so much time to exercise.

Do you really feel you know better than the experienced prison officers on this thread?

As I've said, I don't have any particular problems with the sentencing remarks being played to people in a cell, but I don't see what it would achieve. We still can't force them to listen or pay attention, and we can't stop them laughing at it all.

I'm a bit baffled about what people perceive the magic power of sentencing remarks to be. Do you imagine they will suddenly cause a convict to feel massive remorse? Because I can't help feeling we would have seen some evidence by now if that were the case.

Exactly

And people on the thread are basically saying that they would have been okay with him being dragged, tied down, tasered, gagged, had unnecessary sedation, denied family visits, denied privileges, stripped of all human rights, denied the right to appeal if there was new evidence or a miscarriage of justice (as indeed there was in his case) all if he hadn't been able to force himself to go to the sentencing of a crime he didn't commit.

So he went through all of that he would probably still be in prison yet completely innocent, having been tortured.

And give he was innocent that could have been anyones father, son or husband. So if you are sitting there proposing horrific ideas thinking it doesn't matter because it will never apply to you, it could. Because innocent people do end up in jail.

Ah so you are willing to complain about the current solution but not be one of the people working to fix it

It's so unimportant to you you can't even take 5 mins to email your MP with your support

Wow

Lol If had wanted to be involved in overhauling English courts I’d be an MP myself.

As it is , just like you, I’m a mum and a member of public giving my opinion on a current case under the AIBU section of a website called Mumsnet.

The families of many other murder victims who have been affected by this issue have already started campaigns and it is much more meaningful coming from them. They have lived it and they are asking for it to be implemented

if they set up a petition that aligns with my views I’ll certainly sign it.

If you wish to not sign it then you of course that’s what you’ll do

What does that all achieve for the victims' relatives? I just don't see how anyone gets any closure out of watching someone sitting in a cell, or watching a blank screen? It doesn't take Einstein to work out what behaviour will force the court to turn off the camera and microphone.

The reality is that you can't take away control. Even if you handcuff and gag the criminal, they can still mentally switch off and ignore everything that is happening.

It’s not a silly post

you are saying there is a risk when prisoners are moved and officers should not be placed in an unnecessary risk

there was absolutely no reason for Letby to be put in a van and taken to Manchester today when she had already stated she would not appear.

she was only sent because the rules state that the prison have to send her.

why was this risk acceptable to you?