Page 6 | To think Lucy Letby should be made to attend court for the sentencing

Viviennemary · 2023-08-20T21:06:16+00:00

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.

SpidersAreShitheads · 21/08/2023 01:04

melj1213 · 21/08/2023 00:03

Where has any family explicitly said they want to see her at sentencing?

People keep going on about the families right to have her in court for sentencing but why does everyone assume that they want her there?

As someone who lost a family member to a drunk driver and attended the subsequent court case I didn't go to the sentencing to look the guy in the face as he was sentenced, I went to court so I could get closure by hearing the sentence read out in court for myself.

The fact he was in the court room actually made it more distressing as every time I looked at him all I was picturing was the family member he had killed and that was with him just sitting there passively in the dock, trying not to make eye contact with anyone in the courtroom. If he had been dragged there kicking, screaming and causing a fuss then it would have made it even more distressing to have to witness.

If he hadn't been there then nothing would have changed for me, other than the fact that as well as feeling justice was served for my family member I would have felt contempt for the man who didn't even have the courage to show up to the sentencing. I would not have been angry or demanding he come to court as tbh the less I had to see his face the better, and his case wasn't splashed all over the newspapers with his photo on all the front pages for me to see wherever I went

Show quote history

I don't think it's practical to force criminals to attend court, even though I understand why people feel so strongly about it.

However, to specifically answer your question, it would seem that some of the families affected are very upset LL is able to duck out of attending. This is one of the statements:

"I'm so angry that Letby is refusing to come to court to hear her sentence. She is a coward and we feel cheated that she will not be present to hear exactly how her terrible actions have affected our boys and our lives. What gives her the right to refuse to come up from the cells or to tell the judge that she doesn't intend to listen to his sentence? The law must change. The judge should be given the power to summon her into the dock to face myself, my wife and all the other victims who desperately want her to hear our victim impact statements.

'It is a total injustice and slap in the face for us all. The British justice system needs to change, to ensure that, in the future, all victims' voices are heard by those that perpetrate such horrendous crimes."

HRTQueen · 21/08/2023 01:05

The word closure is bandied around so much

these families won’t get closure they may get to a point where they may not feel so raw but just after this long trial the horrific evidence having to relive the trauma over again they are far from this

Asiatoyork · 21/08/2023 01:13

I don’t think we should make exceptions to the law for difficult cases.

I really feel that people thinking the families would actually get closer for ‘looking her in the eye’ are thinking about someone ‘normal’s’ reaction. But she’s not normal, she’s a serial killer. They will not see whatever they are seeking from her.

Hillcrest2022 · 21/08/2023 01:25

melj1213 · 20/08/2023 23:15

But ironically the fact you think she should be forced to be present just shows that she does have power and control - if the families need her to be there to feel that justice is done then it shows that they are still allowing her to control the situation ... If they read out their statements to the court, allow the sentencing to go ahead and just ignore the fact the dock is empty it takes the power away from her - it doesn't matter if she is physically present, they have still got justice by seeing her found guilty and knowing that she will be locked up for a very long time

Show quote history

@melj1213 I'm really confused about your post because its not very clear.

Are you defending this woman or do you have a different agenda?

HRTQueen · 21/08/2023 01:26

I agree Asiatoyork

they will never get the answers

this is part of their grief trying to make sense of what has happened, look how we are all looking for the reason why she did what she did . To have to live with this is beyond what I can begin to imagine the pain the anger. I hope they can find some peace at some point knowing her freedom has been taken away

mumof1or2 · 21/08/2023 01:37

LooselyBasedOnAMadeUpStory · 20/08/2023 22:09

Short of manhandling her in there, risking injury to her and/or the officers, how could she be forced to attend?

The same way she was "forced" to attend the court case I guess? To everyone saying you can't physically make them go, we physically make defendants attend their own court cases and it doesn't seem to cause too many problems. So why not the sentencing?

Asiatoyork · 21/08/2023 01:37

To have to live with this is beyond what I can begin to imagine the pain the anger. I hope they can find some peace at some point knowing her freedom has been taken away

Same. It’s a pain that can’t be imagined.

charliechaplins · 21/08/2023 01:38

Viviennemary · 20/08/2023 23:08

I agree. Her wishes are irrelevant. I watched sky news and at least one family who lost twins said she should be there. She is the third killer who has refused to attend sentencing recently.

It's hardly going to make them resourceful of their crime......

She should be killed anyway.

charliechaplins · 21/08/2023 01:39

LaurelandHedgy · 20/08/2023 23:09

I can’t believe some of you would deny the victims families their right to deliver their impact statement, and look her in the eye when she’s sentenced to life for the murder of their children.

If she refuses, bring her up strapped to a board, and ragged, like Hannibal Lecter was.

She murdered our most vulnerable, premature babies. She’s inhumane. She deserves no consideration. If the families can take any solace from her being there, they should do what it takes to have LL there.

Is the impact statement read at sentencing?

melj1213 · 21/08/2023 01:59

Hillcrest2022 · 21/08/2023 01:25

@melj1213 I'm really confused about your post because its not very clear.

Are you defending this woman or do you have a different agenda?

Show quote history

I was pointing out the irony of a post saying that she wants to use her non-presence as some form of control over the families when that logic could also be used for the converse argument - the fact that the need for her presence is important to the families shows that they are giving her the control - by insisting on her presence they are insisting that her involvement is important when it isn't. What is important is that their voices are heard by the courts in their statements, whether or not LL is there should be irrelevant as she is not important and by making her presence necessary you are giving her the control. If they were to just carry on the same, whether she is there or not, it shifts the power balance in their favour - they aren't bothered whether she is listening or not, because even if she doesn't hear them the world will.

I'm also defending a person's legal right (as it currently stands) not to attend a sentencing hearing if they choose not to, along with their legal right not to be physically manhandled into the courtroom under those circumstances.

I hold the view that I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it and in this case I uphold the view that I may morally disagree with the law but I will defend anyone's right to have the laws fairly and equally applied without prejudice (as is the point of them) regardless of who they are. If that means that defendants do not have to physically attend a sentencing hearing then so be it; we should not change laws based on the wishes of the victims families unless it is also supported by impartial reasoning.

Practically and logistically there are so many reasons why it would be a bad idea to unilaterally change the law that I cannot support any wish to change the law as it stands currently as there are just too many risk factors that outweigh the "benefits" - just because we can make it happen doesn't mean we have to, especially if it is going to put people's safety at risk.

Hillcrest2022 · 21/08/2023 02:03

@melj1213 that's a lot of word salad. I really can't make any sense out of your nonsense post.

Qilin · 21/08/2023 02:40

The laws allows them not to, therefore she doesn't have to attend.

The parents of those babies may well rather not see her there anyway. Not sure I'd want to. The sentence will shown whether she is there or not.

Qilin · 21/08/2023 02:48

The impact statements are for the courts, rather than the accused.

Do you really think she will be bothered about listening, or it would make her somehow remorseful all of a sudden, by hearing them?

What is she started being disruptive at that time, making the situation even more awful for the families?

What is an officer is injured as a result?

It's not quite as simple as insisting. Sometimes it might actually not be in the best interests for the victims families either.

Augend23 · 21/08/2023 03:02

I agree with this post.

Instinctively, we may want to compel a prisoner to attend. If, when we consider it logically, this isn't the best course of action we shouldn't do it, in spite of our instincts.

I think the point about taking away their power by rising above attempts to manipulate them. (by her) is also a good way of thinking about it.

Augend23 · 21/08/2023 03:03

melj1213 · 21/08/2023 01:59

I was pointing out the irony of a post saying that she wants to use her non-presence as some form of control over the families when that logic could also be used for the converse argument - the fact that the need for her presence is important to the families shows that they are giving her the control - by insisting on her presence they are insisting that her involvement is important when it isn't. What is important is that their voices are heard by the courts in their statements, whether or not LL is there should be irrelevant as she is not important and by making her presence necessary you are giving her the control. If they were to just carry on the same, whether she is there or not, it shifts the power balance in their favour - they aren't bothered whether she is listening or not, because even if she doesn't hear them the world will.

I'm also defending a person's legal right (as it currently stands) not to attend a sentencing hearing if they choose not to, along with their legal right not to be physically manhandled into the courtroom under those circumstances.

I hold the view that I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it and in this case I uphold the view that I may morally disagree with the law but I will defend anyone's right to have the laws fairly and equally applied without prejudice (as is the point of them) regardless of who they are. If that means that defendants do not have to physically attend a sentencing hearing then so be it; we should not change laws based on the wishes of the victims families unless it is also supported by impartial reasoning.

Practically and logistically there are so many reasons why it would be a bad idea to unilaterally change the law that I cannot support any wish to change the law as it stands currently as there are just too many risk factors that outweigh the "benefits" - just because we can make it happen doesn't mean we have to, especially if it is going to put people's safety at risk.

Show quote history

Would help if I quoted the post in question...

DoAWheelie · 21/08/2023 03:47

melj1213 · 21/08/2023 01:59

I was pointing out the irony of a post saying that she wants to use her non-presence as some form of control over the families when that logic could also be used for the converse argument - the fact that the need for her presence is important to the families shows that they are giving her the control - by insisting on her presence they are insisting that her involvement is important when it isn't. What is important is that their voices are heard by the courts in their statements, whether or not LL is there should be irrelevant as she is not important and by making her presence necessary you are giving her the control. If they were to just carry on the same, whether she is there or not, it shifts the power balance in their favour - they aren't bothered whether she is listening or not, because even if she doesn't hear them the world will.

I'm also defending a person's legal right (as it currently stands) not to attend a sentencing hearing if they choose not to, along with their legal right not to be physically manhandled into the courtroom under those circumstances.

I hold the view that I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it and in this case I uphold the view that I may morally disagree with the law but I will defend anyone's right to have the laws fairly and equally applied without prejudice (as is the point of them) regardless of who they are. If that means that defendants do not have to physically attend a sentencing hearing then so be it; we should not change laws based on the wishes of the victims families unless it is also supported by impartial reasoning.

Practically and logistically there are so many reasons why it would be a bad idea to unilaterally change the law that I cannot support any wish to change the law as it stands currently as there are just too many risk factors that outweigh the "benefits" - just because we can make it happen doesn't mean we have to, especially if it is going to put people's safety at risk.

Show quote history

Well said!

Moomilk · 21/08/2023 04:19

What do you mean - made how?

handcuffed!!!! Dragged? God forbid.

so soft this country. Her refusing to leave her cell to bear witness to the effects of her actions is both a final insult and a further leveraging of power over those whose lives she has already devastated.

She killed innocent babies!! Let the parents say what they need!!! And sit there and deal with the whole world looking at your snivelling little face!!!!

AllOfThemWitches · 21/08/2023 04:49

She's a serial killer, she probably gets off on hearing how her actions have impacted people's lives.

Badsox · 21/08/2023 05:04

In the days when this country still had the death penalty for murder, the black cap appeared and the death sentence was handed down by the judge as soon as the jury returned the guilty verdict. Evidence regarding mental incapacity, circumstance etc was then presented by legal teams and if appropriate, the sentence was commuted. This happened quite often.
I am not an advocate for the death penalty, however the handing down of an immediate life sentence at the time of the verdict, if the person has been found guilty would make justice more immediate because the guilty person would almost certainly be present to hear it. The finer points of exactly how long until/if they could seek parole could be decided in the way they are now.

JanetandJohn500 · 21/08/2023 05:07

I find this thread quite misogynistic. Force LL because she's forceable but I don't think people fully understand that this wouldn't be achievable with every prisoner and would probably only be achievable because she is a woman and down to her size. I am appalled by previous suggestions to use male guards or let the parents be the guards. Does that not make a mockery of the justice system? The 'revenge' for her crimes is life imprisonment, not using strength and power against her.
I think that 2-way cameras into her cell with the ability to 'mute' her but giving her no ability to mute the courtroom could be an alternative.
This is probably her last act of control. Ultimately, she's a coward and will spend the rest of her life in jail. Parents looking her in the eye as they state their trauma will just not be straightforward if she is not compliant.

Asiatoyork · 21/08/2023 05:49

@melj1213 that's a lot of word salad. I really can't make any sense out of your nonsense post

I could understand it perfectly well.

MsProbably · 21/08/2023 06:01

Sadly, there are many victims and quite likely they all have very different feelings about seeing her, having their statements heard by her, or the the court

RocketIceLollie · 21/08/2023 06:22

Next best thing I suppose would be to have a live feed beamed to the courtroom of her in her cell with audio of the sentencing played into her cell so she at least has to listen and the families can see her reaction.

FireflyJar · 21/08/2023 06:26

Crunchiethatfridayfeeling · 20/08/2023 22:09

YANBU but I don't see how this can be put into practice.
They can't drag the prisoners kicking and screaming, they could become violent and a risk to the staff and others.
It would also be disruptive in the courtroom and hinder the court process.

I dunno, I work in a secure place and they do drag them out! Mostly because the Officers think they should go!

FireflyJar · 21/08/2023 06:26

And if the judge says they want them there, there are 'encouraged' to go 😅