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.

Yes she should of been brought up like the rest of the scumbags she's just a coward!!

When do the schools go back?

Having to drag someone up stairs into a dock and stand next to them and try to keep them under control is a lot more dangerous than leaving them in a cell.

Speaking personally, if she is absolutely determined not to attend court, I'm fine with her being left in her cell. Pure guesswork on my part, but maybe the idea is to give her the chance to change her mind?

Nonetheless the danger of dragging them to a van and sitting with them during a van journey is unacceptable when the journey itself isn’t needed to ensure due process.

Not unless the prisoner is handcuffed, of course, which would be torture to the prisoner I’m told here.

Maybe the sentencing comments could be played on the van stereo system on the way back to prison

It isn't, though.

When they read out a victim statement, they are speaking to the judge. It's intended to be taken into account when formulating the sentence. They aren't speaking to the accused. They won't get the chance to hurt abuse at the accused.

If the aim is to tell the accused how they have suffered, they get the chance when giving statements to the police and if or when they give evidence in court. In this case, unfortunately she knows only too well how they have suffered because she was mostly present at the time.

If the victims' relatives really want to communicate with the accused directly, they can write to them. There are also schemes whereby victims can have meetings face to face as part of a restorative justice programme, although those are for obvious reasons are only arranged in limited circumstances and with extreme care.

In prison vans they are all locked away in separate compartments. They aren't individually escorted.

However, as I've said, if the accused is insistent that they won't come into court, I have no problem with the law being changed so that they are left in their cells in the remand prison.

The guidance makes it very clear that the purpose of the statement is to inform the court and, subsequently, people like parole boards and probation officers. The purpose is not for the statement to form part of the punishment of the accused.

Presumably it could be considered brutal and torture to force a prisoner into that compartment if they were determined not to get in the van. Many will be big burly dangerous men who know that they have nothing left to lose. Which is why I don’t see the hypocrisy of sending them to the courts putting staff in danger, in this way but then complaining that it would be worse to have an audio piped.

I agree with you that they could well stay in their remand prison and have the audio or visual piped to them.

it probably doesn’t even matter if they stick fingers in ears. Many relatives will just want to see the reaction no matter what it is

a smirk or non listening will perhaps help confirm guilt and help them decide whether to forgive or not.

I think we should listen to the relatives and the important thing is that they are made aware they might see the opposite of remorse. We shouldn’t treat them like children by assuming they wouldn’t want to see the full display of bad behaviour

Yes, but they haven’t had the opportunity to confront her with their own words or formally have the impacts of the crime against them/their loved ones recognised and recorded. The wider impacts of any particular crime might be taken into consideration when it comes to sentencing but a formal statement removes that ‘might’ and humanises the victims.

I’m not really sure why you’re so keen to discredit victim statements as part of the process of justice? It might not be something you give much weight but I’ve no idea why that would lead you to dismiss the value others might place on it.

What’s the point?!

The father of murdered police office Nicola Hughes was interviewed on PM. He said he didn't want to give Dale Creegan any power over him by having his victim personal impact statement read out in court, but he was happy for the judge to read it. As a former prison officer he was of the opinion there was no point forcing defendants into court for sentencing.

For someone like Letby who knew she would get a whole life tariff, what would it achieve putting her in front of those parents?

Furthermore many convicts may in fact be more willing to hear their sentences in this way.

it is their right to be present for their own sentencing after all, but of course some will be fearful of multiple angry families shouting or smirking AT THEM as they get took down. It could therefore be argued that this is LESS torturous for the convict and allows them to be there as it happens.

Being that bit detached and connected via video or audio is probably the best solution for all.

She agreed to go though didnt she?

I can tell you now, that if she had woken up this morning and refused to get dressed, refused to leave her cell, started kicking off, lashing out, throwing shit and piss at people, she would not have been dragged to the court cells.

So when people are talking about risk they're talking about people who say 'Im not going', not people who say 'Im going'.

The guidance states that it also may serve as an opportunity to convey that impact to the convict.

not as a punishment but as part of the victim impact process

The fact is Letby will be given the transcripts of what happened at court today and will likely at some point look at her leisure

I work in the clinical justice field and I see absolutely no point in forcing the defendant into court

The fact she would t appear means she knows damn well what she's done and could t face it

She'll have her whole life to reflect on her actions

If the law changes it will only be to have a live feed into the defendants cell

It's impractical to say just drag someone into the court, this isn't the Middle Ages where you can throw rotten tomatoes at her in the stocks

Her crimes are heinous. But baying for her to appear heals no one .

I voted YANBU but I would never be the person who had to drag them kicking and screaming into court. I don't want workers to be injured and the court process made worse by a disruptive convict.

So actually, I don't think there's anything we can do.

According to that logic the police could never arrest or detain anyone as they might not like it or it might put police officers at risk. Presumably they have ways of dealing with reluctant prisoners. And not wanting to get in a van or attend court doesn't generally get you out of it if you're accused of a crime

It seems unlikely that a victim impact statement would have much effect on a cold blooded killer. She would probably like the fact that she has caused so much anguish. She's not going to hear that the parents are upset and suddenly realise the error of her ways.

It's not the same as a drink driver who ran someone over or even someone caught up in gang violence, where however misguided and stupid, the perpetrator has normal human feeling underneath it all. This murderer clearly doesn't have normal human feelings

I was making the same point as you in response to the posters who disagreed with me saying she should be forced to have it played to her via video or audio link. They said it would be torture to her and dangerous for the staff (and they decided that it means I must want the death sentence)

To me it is more dangerous for all to put her (or any convict )in a van when she has no intention of going in the dock anyway.

A dangerous one could pretend to happily go to court and then make a violent attempt at freedom

@SnackSizeRaisin you’re only giving any value to any effect a victim statement has on the convicted person.

Sometimes the reaction of the convicted is the least important one. There’s also value in having the real life consequences of their actions recognised and recorded as part of the conviction process. There is value in knowing a judge will take those consequences into consideration in their sentencing. There is a value in having the opportunity to have your own words made known to a court room full of people who’ve listened to evidence from a huge event in your life but you may have only been in the audience alongside.

Sometimes, there’s a value in knowing beyond doubt that nothing you can say to a criminal will give them a reason to show remorse or if they do you will know whether or not that makes any difference to your own process of coming to terms with their acts against you.

There’s a value in the victims knowing that they’ve had their opportunity to say their piece and removes any ‘what if’s’ from the justice process.

Was she? There are a number of examples of dangerous violent prisoners refusing to engage as a point of control. We don’t know what her motives were for not attending and we probably never will.

I just wonder if she will ever confess.

Will she have to take part in any kind of treatment programme given that she's been given whole life sentences?

I wonder how long she will maintain she is innocent. The only person I can think of serving a whole life sentence and still protests they are innocent of all crimes is Jeremy Bamber although there must be many, many more.

She's not been diagnosed has she ? She's 'bad not mad' as they say.

Well, to play armchair psychologist, I'd guess she didn't want to be there because people who previously thought she was wonderful now know she is a child murderer. So, I'd agree she was hiding.