Forum menu
Thoughts on this?
Feels like she should be forced to face the judge for sentencing, but is it really necessary? It already feels like enough of a circus, maybe it shouldn't have been reported that she wouldn't attend. That would have at least denied her the publicity.
Not sure how you can?
Short of putting her on a sack barrow like Hannibal Lecter.
She going to get multiple life sentences, a few months for contempt of court or similar is going to make no difference to her stay in prison.
Absolutely if the family or families want it.
I am not sure what it would add really. At the worst a convicted person could take the opportunity to yawn, laugh, etc to make the families of victims feel even more slighted.
I think the proposal is more about the 'theatre' of the courts, and people's desires to see the guilty punished. Whilst this is part of the justice system, we should be more focussed on rehabilitation where possible, and understanding (to prevent reoccurence) in cases like this where rehabilitation seems less likely.
If justice is done, no need for any appearance at sentencing.
On first thought I thought yes, they should be there to face the judge.
But if I take a step back to ask why I thought that, there aren't to many good reasons to mandate them being there.
Ultimately it makes no difference to her sentencing or what happens to her next.
So no, I don't think they should be compelled to be there. But I can see a certain kind of person being very, very keen on it.
it's tempting to imagine them there, quietly absorbing the magnitude of what they did and being genuinely affected by what they hear from victims but I'm not at all sure that's what would follow
...to have a perpetrator potentially sitting grinning, even laughing in the dock or worse, being so disruptive that they're eventually removed anyway might make things hugely worse overall
Feels like she should be forced to face the judge for sentencing, but is it really necessary?
Absolutely, the government needed a great big sinking dead cat to distract from the white (red and grey) elephant in Portland harbor. this is exactly the sort of unworkable law they can bring in then blame on the liberal lefty cabal of lawyers when it turns out that if forced then the guilty will just cause a scene until they're removed.
It already feels like enough of a circus, maybe it shouldn’t have been reported that she wouldn’t attend. That would have at least denied her the publicity.
TBH my gut feeling from seeing the same 30s clip on the news as everyone else was she comes across as more severely mentally unwell and trying to avoid publicity. Not a terrorist seeking publicity or criminal seeking notoriety so I'm not sure what naming her, not naming her, forcing her to attend, or anything else really achieves.
It's a final kick in the teeth for the victims, it denies them the opportunity to have their impact statements read out in front of the offender. Defendants, especially in murder or violent offence cases should absolutely be made to be present for the verdict and sentencing IMO. Dragged kicking and screaming if necessary. I'm genuinely surprised they have a choice in the matter.
Conflicted on this.
I absolutely believe a criminal needs to be publicly accountable for their crimes, and turning up in court should be part of that.
However, I'm not sure I want the judicial process turning into a circus or freak show if prisoners are having to be dragged into the dock. Especially how some parts of the press may then add to the spectacle with their reporting. I think there's a real danger of pandering to the mob. If I was a victim/family in such a case, I'm not sure I'd want the convicted to have the chance to put on a show, that shouldn’t be the abiding memory of my loss.
The government will see this as a vote winner in terms of "tough on crime", I'm sure.
It’s more performative statements from MPs.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s cowardly behaviour, but then so is everything that she’s done so far.
Realistically what more can be done? I believe that refusal to attend already affects sentencing, but in a whole life tarrif, it’s hard to see what else can be done?
If someone is physically dragged into court, and handcuffed to the dock, it’s only likely to cause even more disruption. Similarly if it’s played into their cell, what happens if they start harming themselves or stage a dirty protest during the impact statements?
Cable tie them to a chair and gag them, no kicking and screaming allowed. In the last two publicised cases recently of the guilty refusing to come into court the families wanted it to happen. It's that opinion that counts not anybodies on here.
It’s that opinion that counts not anybodies on here.
Not if you consider the perpetrator to still be a human being and to be treated as such.
Otherwise you'd just end up lynching everyone for every crime...
Cable tie them to a chair and gag them, no kicking and screaming allowed.
I reckon that fella locked up for the best part of two decades for a crime he didn't commit would appreciate one final indignity.
If they dont want to show up, fine. It'll only be another opportunity for the press to big up her achievements as the new number-one best child killer of all time or whatever other crass reporting they have planned.
Defendants, especially in murder or violent offence cases should absolutely be made to be present for the verdict and sentencing IMO. Dragged kicking and screaming if necessary. I’m genuinely surprised they have a choice in the matter.
how are you keeping them quiet and calm? There are many, many ways that dragging someone back into court goes badly
Should be the choice of the victim(s), based on the desire to have them there for the victim statements. Victims would be made aware of the possibility of it backfiring on them.
That would have at least denied her the publicity.
Is publicity something that she's seeking?
The issue of attendance / non attendance of sentencing was already something that is being campaigned on currently. Her non attandance is just an example of convicted criminals choosing not to attend sentencing. Quite a few don't. But the idea of being compelled to attend has been in the news for a few months.
Theres not really anything the convicted party can do by being present to affect the outcome. Similarly for the victims - I'm not really sure why they would choose to be present for sentencing - the trial is over - the sentencing is just a report of a decision that has already been made - they don't have to be there either, theres no case for them to make by being there. It could just be an email.
…to have a perpetrator potentially sitting grinning, even laughing in the dock or worse, being so disruptive that they’re eventually removed anyway might make things hugely worse overall
I'm not convinced this specific convicted person would act like that but in principle I agree. If part of the punishment ritual is watching the convicted crumple at the thought of what is ahead of them and the judge's harsh words of condemnation, it requires that person to have the sort of mindset you would expect to have yourself. That is not going to be the case a lot of the time.
In many ways removing the condemned and leaving the space for the judge and the victims family might be the best outcome - they are not worthy of being in the room. "we have your child's killer; what they did was abhorrent; we as a society are so sorry for what has happened and this person will not ever be released to do the same again".
Bigger picture - it sounds like lots of failures allowed this woman to have the freedom and access to do what she did. It must be a pretty hollow feeling of being right all along if you were one of those doctors forced to apologise to her for raising your suspicions.
If it were so pivotal to the justice process, it would already be law. It's not as if there has been a previous shortage of convictions on which to base a decision.
I reckon that fella locked up for the best part of two decades for a crime he didn’t commit would appreciate one final indignity.
They'd then have to drag the victims family back to court, tied to a chair and make them apologise to him for having made him listen to their victim statements 20 years earlier....
If it were so pivotal to the justice process, it would already be law.
This. We're witnessing soundbites and spin by a Government desperately trying to cling on before it's own political party tears itself apart. They'll do or say anything to remain relevant to potential voters.
Similarly for the victims – I’m not really sure why they would choose to be present for sentencing – the trial is over – the sentencing is just a report of a decision that has already been made – they don’t have to be there either, theres not case for them to make. It could just be an email.
It’s a chance for them to feel heard. Not quite so effective by email.
It’s a chance for them to feel heard.
Only if the convicted is actually listening....
I suspect in most cases they DGAS.
Only if the convicted is actually listening….
I suspect in most cases they DGAS.
A chance for the victims to be heard by the court.
Bread and circuses.
It would achieve nothing apart from a nice spectacle for others
I really don’t understand it as thankfully I have never been in these peoples shoes.
Looking at it objectively though, what does it achieve? Maybe some murderers my offer remorse, but then I would imagine most people that kill will be anything other than pleasant in front of victims families making things worse for the families, not to mention the staff who would have to try and get the person to the court
If the law did change I bet there would be many cases where the ‘law’ would have to be changed back so Mr physcho murderer didn’t end going in to the court room and causing more harm to victims
Just doesn’t help either side IMO.
A chance for the victims to be heard by the court.
Correct but the murderer really isn’t that bothered about hearing so don’t need to be there, it’s not going to change the outcome, or make them think they wish they hadn’t done it
there has been work done where prisoner rehabilitation has worked by meeting victims, but the day of sentencing isn’t really the time to start that process is it, that’s just fundamentally wrong
What I would like to see is the NHS Senior Managers appear in front of the families and explain why they did nothing to stop this happening
That is the real issue here, and I hope someone has the balls to do them for corporate manslaughter. this happens day in day out in the NHS, maybe not murder but certainly cases of harm
the managers do take some blame for the slowness in dealing with it - but are also a product of a system intended to mimic competition - so of course there is pressure on them not to publicise bad news and to sweep things under the rug. Inevitable in the English system
When you look into any adverse events in the NHS its almost always a series of errors or actions - not just one. In this case that would include a system which leads to secrecy - both the competition aspect and also the blame culture. Training of manager might well play a part. Monitoring of staff, training etc etc etc
Who are we vaguebooking about? That nurse?
It’s that opinion that counts not anybodies on here.
It's not though, is it. There is an outside chance that victims and family thereof might just be a little bit emotional, and emotion isn't a great contributing factor in a legal process. Someone's "opinion" does not - and absolutely should not - matter one jot when it comes to the processing and sentencing of an accused suspect.
this happens day in day out in the NHS
Medical serial killers?
It’s that opinion that counts not anybodies on here.
If my child had been murdered I strongly suspect I'd want the victim dragged through the streets on a cart while things were hurled at them. Every day. Sentencing should be about justice not retribution at the whim of those left behind by such horrible crimes.
Medical serial killers?
Nope but practice causing harm to patients. All the maternity issues result from the way/lack of governance.
I worked at a Trust where everyone knew 1 surgeons outcomes were not great, it even ended up in a coroner s court. The Trust only took action after coroners court, and gave him a nice pay off to leave, he now works privately in Dubai
I know closer to home (for me) where everything single thing that has happened in this case has happened to surgeons who raised concerns about a colleague (colleague wasn’t murdering people, but was/is causing harm)
There was that surgeon that stabbed another. That involved safety concerns
The safety/governance process in hospitals is completely flawed. It’s always the person who raises the concerns who gets victimised.
A chance for the victims to be heard by the court.
Does that not still happen, regardless?
Did I miss something in this case that hasn't happened previously, why is there now a demand for those found guilty to be present?
If they cant be arsed to show up for sentencing then they should loose their 50% reduction in sentence for being good behind bars.
The clamour in the media for it is, I suspect, more about missing out on the court sketch and something to write dramatically about.
The victims can't be named for legal reasons, and there are a lot of column inches to fill with articles questioning how a nice middle-class white girl could do such a thing.
If they cant be arsed to show up for sentencing then they should loose their 50% reduction in sentence for being good behind bars.
She's getting a Whole Life Tariff, no reduction is available.
I can't see what value it would add her being there, she is going to prison for the rest of her life I would call that a result.
@FunkyDunc as a doctor, I think that the fundamental error made here was one of classification.
Instead of treating this as an abuse case, it was treated as one of clinical competence. The rest stems from that.
There is an awful lot of arse-covering going on.
The doctors have some very difficult questions to answer I’m afraid.
If they suspected criminality early on, they had a clear ethical and statutory duty, which is to inform the police. No ifs, no buts no maybes. It is also clear that they cannot defer this duty to any other person. Our ethical and statutory duties override any other considerations.
I know this because it is part of our child protection training.
If they didn’t suspect criminality early on, which is understandable, because medical serial killers are rare, and “nice Lucy” doesn’t fit the perceived profile, then it is not surprising that neither did the management who consequently treated it as an issue of clinical incompetence, for which little to no evidence was found.
It’s more performative statements from MPs.
This. Daily Mail -> Rishi Sunak -> Keir Starmer, the shit dribbling downhill.
TiRed
Full Member
If it were so pivotal to the justice process, it would already be law. It’s not as if there has been a previous shortage of convictions on which to base a decision
Came here to say exactly that.
It’s that opinion that counts not anybodies on here.
If that were true, then I'm sure death penalty would be applied.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">It's the courts opinion that counts and the sentence applied is punishment *not* revenge. </span>
And to many politicians these days seem to think they are media pundits rather than legislators.
There was a Now Show sketch years ago that I always think of in these situations where there is a clamour for "something to be done"
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Following a train crash they asked the parents of one of the victims if enough has been done to ensure safety and whether they should spend millions of pounds installing safety systems. </span>
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">The parent said " of course I think so, but I'm not the right person to ask, I'm too emotionally involved. You need to ask someone who can judge whether it's an effective and proportionate use of public money"</span>
I think everyone should be present at sentencing unless the court grants permission not to be there. To me its as much about justice being seen to be done and the guilty party should be present to hear the comments of the judge and their sentence. Not turning up also makes the victim statements a bit pointless as the person they are aimed at isn’t there to hear them and I dont suppose they read them at a later date.
And if they turn up just to grin and laugh at the impact statements then what?
Then give the judge the power to dismiss them from court, as per interview on R4 news the "norm" should the that the guilty be in court for these things but give the judge the power to use their common sense.