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.

Whatever it costs, I still see no purpose in it. It won't necessarily provide victims/families with the closure they are looking for, and in fact could do the opposite.

Seeing their child's murderer visibly laughing and smirking, potentially revelling in the pain they've caused, would be just as disruptive and upsetting to the families as hearing it.

Someone who commits a crime like this is not going to feel or display remorse/guilt in the way that you or I would. So trying to engineer a situation where this happens is doomed to failure.

Many of us don't believe the law needs to change

And if your only solution to potentially problematic behaviour is a soundproof booth in every court costing millions, then the cost of repairs and upkeep then yes the cost is a problem

Are you going to be agreed to be taxed more to pay for it?

Posters suggesting allowing defendants to appear by way of video link have no idea of the depravity which people can sink too.

even with the sound off there is going to be no benefit to the victims.

I’ve had defendants strip; smear excrement; make lewd comments; masturbate; punch security staff; throw themselves on the ground; kiss their codefendant; attempt to escape; shout abuse. None of this is helpful to a victim

I am interested to know what the people in charge of the justice system have for ideas on how to manage having the accused in court for sentencing. I understand from mumsnet that the majority view is to give murderers the choice on being at their sentencing. I say don’t give a murderer this choice. Different opinions. I think that the tax system could be better managed to meet the needs of the administration. Paying more into a broken system
wont fix it.

@Locutus2000 They have similar eyes in their mugshots, Joanne Denneh and Lucy Letby.

I understand from mumsnet that the majority view is to give murderers the choice on being at their sentencing

I think the majority view is that we would prefer not to put the officers at any further risk of injury or death for something where there is no risk to the wider public. They already risk their lives and health to keep us safe.

The average life expectancy of a prison officer is 20 years lower than that of an average man. I would prefer not to add to their burden just for the sake of a performance.

Many people have written eloquently on this and other threads about just how high them impact is on officers and their families and how dangerous it can be if a prisoner starts to kick off. And still people bleat "it must be possible to do something" safe in the knowledge that they aren't the ones being asked to do the "something".

We already have a retention and recruitment crisis in the prison service. If their jobs are made harder and more people leave I wonder if those of you adamant that this change is needed will volunteer to replace them or waffle on about "how hard can it be".

My knee jerk reaction to this a couple of days ago was yes, bind them and grag them to court.

But i've changed my mind. Lots of reasons, but one thing struck me most: someone on a BBC interview said it's very rare and unlikely that the victim or their family ever get the 'satisfactory' reaction from the defendant that they may have set their hearts on. Total lack of remorse or often the simple total lack of any reaction at all can become an additional source of pain, and disappointment to them.

I don't think court is the place for the victims to look for comfort of any sort.

Out of interest, at the moment the 'right' of the defendant is to go court to hear their sentence. In refusal they are waiving that right.

“Bleating” - I’m happy to bleat in favour of taking the choice away from a murderer or any other type of serious criminal. Let them be told what to do. Arrests are made, prisoners are in imprisoned so in that logic it’s possible to get a criminal in court for sentencing. That’s my unpopular opinion but I stand by it.

Unpopular and unethical

To expect people to put their lives and health at risk for something that poses no risk to the public is not the moral high ground. It is the very opposite.

I wonder if you will feel the same if you have children who go into the prison service.

It is quite interesting the number of people who, over the course of the multiple threads on the issue, have decided that because resources exist to put people in prison they also exist to drag uncooperative defendants to court. Like it's automatic.

I've given up hoping that any of them will give the slightest fuck about the prison and court staff, the lack of concern has become boring now. But this bit is still a curiosity.

Because he is absolutely shit and not delivering anything he said he would. So now looking for brownie points.

It's actually a very popular opinion but that doesn't mean it's right. If you want to drag reluctant criminals in front of court I suggest you give it a go yourself

Can't help but think this call for her to be in court or have to watch/hear the sentencing, is more about the publics want to watch/hear about her reaction rather than her being punished etc.

And how would I do that? What a stupid comment you make. Obviously trained professionals would be needed. Just like trained professionals arrest the accused and get the accused to court and prison.

I would feel absolutely the same.

The training is only 12 weeks. You would just need to apply like anyone else.

It's hardly a stupid comment. we don't have enough prison officers and if you feel so strongly that things should be done differently, for which we need more staff, why not be happy to help out?

Yeah, this is more for bystanders for the most part, I would expect if LL came out like T.J. Lane the Ohio School shooter did for his sentencing there would be uproar as well.

It isn't as though an extra life order for being as worse as possible as she could be is going to make any difference.

I dont meet the requirements needed unfortunately but many young unemployed people will meet the requirements and get jobs.

Recruitment is down, retention is down. the prison service is in crisis.

Young unemployed people don't necessarily want to risk assault, being made disabled or being killed for a public who doesnt give a shit about their safety and a poor salary funnily enough

These last few posts are gold.

You didn't explain why it was a stupid comment either

How was the poster supposed to know you wouldn't meet the requirements?

So they get the prisoner to court and he/she refuses to leave their holding cell, says they're not going into the court room.

What then?

Apply through Mitie?

You don't need any GCSEs, just reasonable spoken and written English/numeracy and to have lived in the UK for three years.

A whole £12.50 an hour, too, after your five week training. And if you get hurt, they kindly let you access and pay for a private GP out of your own pocket.

That's who would have the job of dragging people to/from the dock, not prison officers.

And not just @ButterCrackers either. Plenty of others in the thread could be putting their money where their mouths are.

It's all rather ghoulish. I used to watch crime programs when I was younger and stopped one day when I realised how awful and sickening it was. It's nowt to do with retribution or learning lessons, it's about being a voyeur to the most heinous of crimes.