Rishi Sunak and Lucy Lenny Case

[BackAgainstWall]

Why on earth didn’t Rishi Sunak rush to change the law to make it mandatory for offenders to appear in court at sentencing.

One would assume he has known about the Lucy Letby case for months, if not years. As usual with this government, the horse has already bolted.

Why doesn’t he want a statutory inquiry into the Lucy Letby case, where witnesses are legally compelled to present evidence?

Why would he want to rush it and in my opinion miss facts/gloss over such harrowing events?

It’s a complete insult to those poor parents and consultants.

And all of those people do that job because the risk to the public of them not doing it is high

There is zero risk to the public if someone doesn't attend sentencing

That's the whole point

You want people to risk their lives for zero risk to you and zero impact to you if it doesn't happen

I unfortunately am not an expert on these matters just as you aren’t an expert either. My stance is remove the choice of murderers and other serious criminals on yes or no to get their sentence in court. They are in a controlled environment so there has to be a way to move them. I don’t want anyone hurt or killed. The criminal has to be moved from the court cell to prison so this is a risk that must have managed procedures.

How do you know @PinkCherryBlossoms isn't an expert?

You forget that the criminal has been moved about already and will be moved after. All a risk. What do you think about arrests being made? Do you agree with that? It’s a massive risk to rock up to a dwelling to arrest someone. There’s a whole procedure from start to finish that is a big risk.

I mean I literally explained the answer about arrests in my post

Police arrest people at risk to themselves because the risk to the public is high

You are comparing that with a senario with no risk to the public and saying if they protect people from high risks situations by putting themselves in danger, they should put themselves in danger when the public don't need protecting

You forget that the criminal has been moved about already and will be moved after.

I forgot nothing. People have already explained in great detail on multiple threads why the risk is different between van and cell and up stairs into a court room to make someone sit still and not kick off for a far longer period of time

For what it's worth I don't think the prison staff should have to even take them there in the first place at risk to themselves if the detainee has refused to attend sentencing

It makes no odds whether you want anyone hurt or not. You are advocating a policy that will increase the risk. I am telling you this as someone who has clearly spent a lot more time in courts than you have, but one could be a complete stranger to the justice system and understand that you're talking nonsense.

And you've not told us how you think it's going to work practically either, whether Serco are going to be up for the high risk contracts, particularly after the fine. It just 'has' to happen. If you feel you lack sufficient expertise to answer that question, then you also lack sufficient expertise to say it should happen in the first place.

I'd oppose any measures that increase the risk to people in these roles too.

Nobody has even explained an actual benefit to either the victim's family or the general public to put against the increased risk either.

I'm sure they'll come up with a solution longer term. All this bound, gagged and dragged business is a bit medieval for me.

Nobody has even explained an actual benefit to either the victim's family or the general public to put against the increased risk either

quite!

@ButterCrackers why do you think people “must” listen to sentencing remarks? What is the benefit?

I’m on the side of this mother https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/olivia-pratt-korbel-lucy-letby-court-setencing-b2397015.html . Listen to her and read the article. Answers all the questions.
For those that agree that murderers and other serious criminals should continue to have the choice on hearing their sentences or not - you are entitled to your opinion which I disagree entirely with.

And yet nobody who wants this policy change has yet explained how it's going to work, how they'll prevent more Lorraine Barwells nor where the people who they expect to take on the increased risk are going to come from. Even the people with the best and most understandable reasons. The article certainly doesn't.

I can fully understand that families of victims are disappointed that the murderer didn't appear in court because they think it will help. But what about the families of those whose murdered did appear. Did it really help or did they end up feeling worse because they didn't get what they felt was am appropriate response/remorse/crying when they realised the length of sentence.
If we were ever in this situation I'm sure my DH would "want to see the barstard suffer" and then spend the rest of his life bitter if that suffering wasn't manifested in a way he wanted to see, which it probably wouldn't be.

I fully support your right to drag them there @ButterCrackers. Oh no. You mean other people should do it.

Of course we all sympathise with families of loved ones but we don't allow victims to decide punishments for a reason.

If there's a real need to play the judgement to the criminal and there are safe ways this could happen, fine. Play it on a portable device outside the cell if you like. What difference it'll make is beyond me.

Cheryl Korbel is quoted as saying "“It’s important for the offenders to listen to the pain that they’ve caused, the pain that is ongoing" and, in an ideal world, she would be right. The murderer would list quietly to the results of what they've done, empathise, feel distressed, and begin the process of rehabilitation.

But it's not an ideal world, and indeed if it were these situations wouldn't arise. Letby has already listened to and watched these parents' pain at its rawest, and clearly if anything she enjoyed it. More materially, the reality is that there is nothing anyone can do to force someone to listen, let alone to learn from it. So the question is still - what is the benefit of going through the exercise of forcing the convicted person into court that outweighs the considerable risks to prison staff? I still haven't seen any explanation that works in the event that convicts aren't prepared to listen.

Yes, she's idealising what would happen. Understandably, in her situation, but idealising nonetheless.

And of course, the worst case scenario isn't just the convict not listening. That's quite minimal, in terms of the harm they could cause. It's behaving in a way that causes further pain and makes rehabilitation much less likely.

True and given Lucy Letby will be in prison for the rest of her life I'm not sure rehabilitation is an aim anyway.

People assume the convict will react the way they want them to. Understandably they want the convict to react with horror when they realise how long they will spend in prison. But they usually don't. They already have a good idea what the sentence will be. And if they actually cared about other people's feelings they probably wouldn't be there in the first place. You are more likely to get a smirk than tears which doesn't help the victim's family at all.

TBH I'm less concerned about the failure to attend court than I am in Rishi resisting a proper, judge-led inquiry where people can be compelled to attend

But then I guesss a non-statutory one is so much easier to interfere with ...

Agree.

I totally agree about the inquiry. The management response in particular in this case was very concerning.