I’m listening to LBC callers say that forcing the convict to attend their sentencing hearing ‘smacks of medievalism’. All kinds of hell-fire would be unleashed if this law was overturned.
Yet in the US and other countries, convicts are forced to attend their sentencing hearings and the sky didn’t fall. What is so fucking special about the UK?
I don’t think they’re given a choice exactly. But if they refuse to attend, current policy is not to force them.
I am not big on the heavy hand of the state but I do think that where prison is inevitable and lives have been taken or irreparably damaged, it should be compulsory. It’s not like they’re volunteering to go to prison either.
The reason I think it should be required is because it is (a partial form of) restorative justice and because it’s an element of any kind of rehabilitation (to the extent that rehabilitation is possible after crimes of this nature).
Anyways, moot point. The government has an easy win here given the publicity around this case and another high profile one in Liverpool recently. Unless there is a good reason I can’t think of, policy will likely change for PR points.
Ok I don’t really have an opinion on this particular thing, but in general - if the US forces people to do something and the UK doesn’t, I’m willing to give UK the benefit of the doubt.
And more in general, if in doubt, then giving people more freedom is not a bad thing. It never happens these days though - citizen rights keep being constantly eroded everywhere, so it may be worth fighting even for little things like this to keep the idea in mind.
in general… giving people more freedom is not a bad thing
This is my stance. Before sentencing, we must give the defendant as much freedom as realistically possible (even in fringe cases where we ‘know’ beforehand that they’ll die behind bars).
citizen rights keep being constantly eroded everywhere, so it may be worth fighting even for little things like this to keep the idea in mind.
Might be an unpopular opinion around here but I don’t think that after this sort of crime you’re still a citizen. You’ve moved yourself outside of the accepted definition of citizen to something else. I’m not saying you no longer have any rights, of course you do. But I don’t think you should be afforded citizens rights as we know them. Call it criminal rights or whatever you want but you’re no longer a citizen if you choose so brazenly to murder defenceless babies in the way she did. And given that, I don’t think criminals should be allowed to skip sentencing.
Sounds like bullshit to me.
Which part?
You’re saying that “citizen rights keep being constantly eroded everywhere” so we should allow actual murderers of children to not attend sentencing for this reason? Wouldn’t want to hurt their sense of rights.
Not a chance. I’m not suggesting forcing everyone to appear at their sentence hearing, but for crimes like the one discussed, then they should be made to show up. It’s not often murders of at least seven human life’s appear in UK courts, but on the rare instances they are, they should definitely be made to show up for sentencing
Firstly, I’m not the one who was arguing anything, so it’s weird to quote at me. Just like you are not the person I was querying because I was interested in what they think is bullshit in the above post.
For the record though, I find your assertion to be a very arbitrary distinction. I don’t see what it changes having them there aside from a chance for a Game of Thrones style “Shame” walk. And I don’t see where the line would be where you lose the same human rights as everyone else.
Im happy to draw the line if you want. If you actively take away the lives of multiple people, then your “human rights” (what human rights are being violated?) should be inconvenienced a little and you are made to sit in court.
It’s just weird that youd link this scenario to a TV show scene.
If I had to guess, I’d say until the sentence has been passed the defendant’s still officially either in custody or on bail, and therefore not under obligation to be moved around at the behest of others, lest they were to be given a non-custodial sentence (obvs not gonna happen in this case, but everyone must be treat the same regardless).
And I guess they therefore have to treat being in custody (a ‘necessary evil’ for flight risks or public safety) the same as being on bail, as the defendants must be treat as equally as possible pre-sentencing.
That being said, I’d think a judge would look disfavourably upon a no-show, and could affect the sentencing accordingly. Obviously in this case it was always likely to be a whole life tariff anyway, so Letby had nothing to lose.
Edit: OK I’ve actually now read the article (go me, lol) and the sentiment in it seems similar.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It seems like it would be difficult to stop a defendant, having been physically forced into the dock, from disrupting proceedings.
Indeed. What do you do when the person in the dock just yells ‘Nah nah nsh nah nah nah’? Gag them?
The defendant is going to be punished. Forcing them to attend the sentencing, especially in cases like this, would not be in their interest at all, only in the interest of punishment and the victims families would this be a benefit. I’m not saying that I agree with that at all, but it’s a rational argument against forcing them to attend.
Forcing them to attend the sentencing, especially in cases like this, would not be in their interest at all, only in the interest of punishment and the victims families would this be a benefit.
See I think this is a bit dangerous to the victims families. This is a murderer, going away for their entire life. She has literally nothing to lose at this point. She could have hurled abuse at the victims. At the judge. Screamed incoherently. Self harmed. Attempted to harm others. There is no further punishment that we as a society could inflict upon her.
Setting aside that this case might be an exception because it seems she was mentally ill, shouldn’t the benefit of the victim’s families take priority over the convict?
Personally, I agree with you in a moralistic fashion. I’m not sure that legally they can do that.
They’re discussing what the law should be, so by definition whatever they decide would be legal.
