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.

Some incorrect assumptions made about me there but fair enough, I get it, you are willing to spend hours on MN arguing about it but not 5 mins on an email to an MP

So it's not that important after all

Because it allows people to pretend they have the moral high ground over those who have pointed out the obvious flaws with the solutions on the thread

Where did I make an assumption about you?

As it is , just like you, I’m a mum and a member of public

It's a strange day when people basically advocating torture are claiming the moral high ground...

The victims' families have already been able to see her reactions, both at the time of their children's illnesses and/or deaths, and during the trial.

You can’t force someone like that to do things as getting a life sentence means they have nothing to loose and could behave bow they like putting others at risk. Or severely disrupting the court.
Piping it into her cell doesn’t mean she’d listen.

Well I apologise if you are not a mum but it’s hardly relevant at all to the discussion

maybe you aren’t a member of the public either FFS

*lose 🙄

I realise I’m massively in the minority here but no I don’t think she should be made to attend.

As the judge said she relished in what she said. I would worry she would only relish in seeing the pain and hurt in these poor parents. She has shown no remorse and I don’t see what actually seeing her would actually give them anyway. It won’t give them closure or help their pain and I doubt she’s going go show she cares.

Because they care more you know!

More than the people who work in the prison service and as solicitors or judges

By baying for blood and demanding torture they care more

Just not enough to actually do a damn thing about it. Not even enough to write an email.

Unlike the prison service and the solicitors and judges who are actually out there making the world safer. But what do they know...

Just makes me wonder how often you jump to conclusions based on no data...

I think if she was going to relish in their pain she would have turned up today

she was hiding

No I was talking about myself and the fact this is mumsnet

I can’t help it if you are so self centred that you have to make this about you

You really are doing victims and their families a massive disservice if you believe that this is the only chance to show a criminal how shameful their actions have been.

The process begins as soon as someone is charged and becomes dependent on the courts for permission even to stay free pending trial. It continues during the trial when they are seated separately from everyone else but where they can be watched by not only their victims but also members of the general public, and their activities can be reported on in the press. Finally, of course, the main source of shame lies in being sentenced, especially if it is a custodial sentence. Basically you're telling people that they can't live in society, can't live with their families, can't go out when they want to, and have to spend their days doing exactly what they're told, no matter how demeaning or actively unpleasant, if they want life to be halfway tolerable. In this case, you're telling Letby that that state of affairs will last for ever.

If you want them to have to acknowledge their victims, part of the work they will have to do in prison will entail facing that also. They don't get to walk away from what they've done.

If you don't think that inflicts shame and takes away power, I struggle to understand your thought processes.

I'm saying the risk should not be increased by forcing people into court on more occasions than they are now.

You are free to argue that the current level of risk is also unjustifiable if you want, but that's your case to make not mine. It also further strengthens the argument that it shouldn't be increased.

It remains the case that you were wrong to say that when we apprehend people, that means we also have the resources to transport them anywhere we want them to be. And that the comment about remand was idiotic.

As I said, silly.

Oops

You’re assuming that none of them work in these or related roles or with victims.

makes me wonder how often you jump to conclusions with no data…..

Judging by the literacy levels shown by the pro-torture posters on this thread, I think it's safe to presume none works in the judicial system in any decision-making capacity.

Ah! Oh so it makes it different if it’s something that already happens now is it?

somehow THAT risk is acceptable even though the reason is pointless.

you’ve never considered that a current process that is risky could be challenged and changed if it’s pointless?

There is no point in putting an officer at risk just so that a convict can get a last drive down the motorway and a look at Manchester City centre.

I think you are now just trying to fit it into your own narrative because you didn’t consider it before you came at me.

why won’t you send an email to your MP then about these unnecessary risks that happen now?

I think what people are getting at with your posts is that you seem to think there is some sort of benefit to seeing the accused listen to the sentencing remarks, but you never explain what that benefit is in any way that holds any conviction. You talk about nebulous concepts of shaming them, but haven't explained why listening to sentencing is more shameful than any other part of the process. Most materially you haven't explained how it helps victims and their families when there are so many ways the accused can make it clear that they are just not listening. The reality is that it begins to sound as if what you really want is for them to be put in a pillory so people can throw things at them, but you can't quite bring yourself to say that.

As for blind prisoners, I assume if they want to know the sentencing remarks they can have them read out to them, or put into braille or very large font. If they don't, presumably not.

Exactly

And to be honest if there is a prison officer on here demanding detainees get dragged by their hair, gagged or stripped on their human rights they deserve to be sacked

Pro torture ?

I haven't said anything about whether the current risks are acceptable, and you won't be making that the topic of our discussion.

Your arguments are idiotic. You've said that because a risk exists already its not a problem to increase it, that apprehending someone means we must therefore have the resources to move them and some total nonsense about people on remand. The fact that processes can be challenged is also not a reason to implement whatever bollocks anyone can think of.

It’s the only chance the relatives get to speak directly to her. For many it is important to them.

Of course all the collective aspects are part of the punishment.

The guidance on victim impact statements explains the benefit.

it also explains to the relatives that the offender may not feel any remorse.