To think that it’s ridiculous to offer prisoners ‘incentives’ for attending verdict/sentencing hearings - it’s connected to Lucy Letby.

[pam290358]

Just heard on the news that Lucy Letby has again refused to attend court - this time for sentencing today. There are now calls for tougher sentences for those who won’t attend court, but an ‘expert’ on the BBC is of the opinion that that won’t work for people already facing long sentences/whole life terms. The alternative view is that they should be offered ‘incentives’ to do so, such as privileges in prison or live streaming the proceedings from their cell.

I’m not an advocate of dragging them kicking and screaming into the dock because I don’t think it benefits anyone - least of all the victims’ families who are already traumatised enough, but I must admit to being strongly against offering incentives for something I feel should be mandatory anyway. What do others think ?

She was well into her killing spree long before Dr A even worked at the hospital.

About as much empathy as everyone else I’ve met in the system. No wonder you all hate your jobs so much.

Eh, you want empathy?

That's what your here for, and my lack of it is what you drawn from my "lived experience"?

You have no idea what I am really like.

The point I was making, were it legal and a judge so required it, a video link is feasible and would happen, lock downs or not.

Prisoners can refuse to move up to legal dept for video links same as they can refuse to go to court

Happens frequently

This was in one of the Southern states I think and the snippets from news reports included in the video were praising the judges’ actions, so it doesn’t sound like the same one. It was a rape/murder case and the defendant was taunting the family. Not suggesting the judges’ actions were right, but the details of the case were horrific and I think the judge had just had enough. He did face disciplinary action afterwards though. The upload may still be on YouTube - it wasn’t that long ago.

Oh yes and get kicked and punched whose going to volunteer for that, what if the guard gets injured?
Play it on a loop in her cell over and over so she can hear what she's done.

Play it on a loop on her cell.....on what??

Why can certain prison rights not be removed for this sort of thing? Take away any visitation, things like that.

Do you really want to go down the line of sedation? This is a medical procedure, not a tool of convenience.

Prison visits can not be removed as punishment

Prison act 1952 and human rights cover this.
A governors job would be on the line for that

It will not be lawful to sedate someone to attend a sentencing hearing.

I would make it a factor in release. If you do not attend your sentencing, then that could be used against you at your release hearing. It would only apply to those on life sentences, which would not include Lucy Letby.

Lucy Letby was in Manchester crown court, she refused to come up from the cells. As is her right. It's literally the last bit of control she's ever going to have over her life. She heard her sentence from the cells.

Those advocating for the PCOs (who are on not much more than minimum wage) manhandling prisoners who are unwilling and combative. Why? What good do you think it would do? It's putting them in harm's way (which they see enough of on a weekly basis) and will do no good for the victims and the families of the victims.

It’s a bizarre modern equivalent of attending a public execution. Puerile and immature. I’m sure it will lead to a knee jerk reaction from parliament which will put more people at risk.

Ridiculous analogy. Refusing to be present for sentencing is a final act of contempt for the justice system and the victims. Justice in this country should be seen to be done and in the case of these cowardly and contemptuous criminals that’s not happening.

I'm less pessimistic than you, I don't think it will. Sunak and Starmer have both jumped on a passing bandwagon, and the matter will be quietly dropped once the story has died down. The Tories are going to be out pretty soon anyway, and Starmer at least will know why trying to change this is such a silly and unworkable idea. Even if he's currently pretending he doesn't.

But justice was done? (As far as the law can dictate). She will be in prison for the rest of her life. Just because nobody saw her receive her sentence doesn't mean it won't be enacted. Wanting to watch her reaction doesn't change anything. She'll have known she was going to receive a whole life sentence, it won't have come as a shock to her.

Who do you think should manhandle and force these prisoners to appear? Why would you want harm to come upon the prison/court staff? Which realistically is the outcome. Plus harm to the victim and victims families. Mild mannered and compliant Lucy Letby is not the norm in the cells beneath court.

Hang on, the campaign to change the law around offenders being compelled to attend sentencing is bring led by the mother of Olivia Pratt-Korbel who has first hand experience of her daughters killers not attending sentencing. This isn't just some pitchfork toting mob.

She made a really good point on TV yesterday where she said prison is meant to be about rehabilitation, and that that rehabilitation should begin in the dock hearing the victim impact statement as a first step towards taking responsibility for their crimes.

It wouldn't make any difference for those facing a whole life order, but I wonder for those who will eventually be eligible for parole; whether their attendance at sentencing or the degree to which they later engage with the transcript could be made a condition of their release (or if not a straight up condition, a pretty weighty consideration).

That is a very good point she made.

Oh dear it is such a shame that prisoners are inconvenienced like this , isn't it?

@MrsFiddle doesn't affect the prisoners, only the staff ...

Surely though any punishment for not attending = a reward for attending.

If for example as multiple people have suggested you get a longer sentence for not attending, removal of phone privileges, removal of visits for not attending...

The outcome of that is someone gets a shorter sentence, phone privileges and extra visits for attending. Which is what people are outraged by?

Also all this talk of sedating?! What good is it if someone attends but is half passed out? If the purpose (for those people) is for them to full understand their crimes then how will they do that when they are sedated, semi conscious?

You can really tell that people are just baying for blood with either zero knowledge of how prisons work, or no real experience of how horrible these things are

If a victim wants closure from an input statement, it's not gonna come from reading it to someone who is barely awake, screaming or shouting or making disruptive comments.

Partly them not attending (and having the ability to remove someone if they aren't co-operating) is to keep the behaviour in court respectful and not give them a further audience.

Lots of people thrive on the attention of being notorious. Say you have someone who is playing up to the crowd, making sexualising gestures while the victims tell their story. You want to be able to remove them, to stop the subsequent possible press notoriety, stop the attention they crave. You can't do that if they have to be in the room!

How is that? Surely the prisoners are the ones missing out on education etc etc?

But justice was done?

It wasn’t seen to be done. Letby’s cowardice spat on her victims’ families.

You are not allowed to remove visits or phone access....they are not privileges, they are rights.

If for example as multiple people have suggested you get a longer sentence for not attending, removal of phone privileges, removal of visits for not attending...The outcome of that is someone gets a shorter sentence, phone privileges and extra visits for attending. Which is what people are outraged by?

No, the person who attends gets the same sentence, privileges, etc, ie the baseline.