Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 1,354
- Location
- Finally, Swindon
I wonder if she’ll get a whole life order, Beverley Allit didn’t
Nurse arrested for murdering babies
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
As for forcing people to go to sentencing,
If somebody doesn't want to go, and they're literally fighting with prison guards not to go, do we put them in a spithood and force them into the courtroom?
What do people think?
I'm graviating towards yes - force them there, they've been found guilty, they must be in the room during sentencing., spithood, gagged and bound if need be.
It feels like an important part of justice for the families, seeing the offender there - in front of the judge being sent down, there's a primal simple part of me that thinks that would help a lot, if I was a victim or family member.
If somebody doesn't want to go, and they're literally fighting with prison guards not to go, do we put them in a spithood and force them into the courtroom?
What do people think?
I'm graviating towards yes - force them there, they've been found guilty, they must be in the room during sentencing., spithood, gagged and bound if need be.
It feels like an important part of justice for the families, seeing the offender there - in front of the judge being sent down, there's a primal simple part of me that thinks that would help a lot, if I was a victim or family member.
Last edited:
Because if you average 12 deaths a year and one year you get 13 that is "above average", or if you are working on a neonatal ward and you get 1 death most years, then one year you get a trio of dead triplets when the mother gets an infection whilst pregnant that's way above the "average" despite it potentially being one incident.
Remember your "average" is just that, it's a statistical point between several sets of numbers, very few places will actually be the mean or median most will by definition be above or below it for one reason or another, and for a ward of a type where deaths are rare it might only take one extra incident to push it well over the "average" and yet the next year it might be well below.
Medicine is the sort of thing where there are so many variables that are out of anyone's control that if you start investigating every time there is a change to "above average" you're going to be chasing a lot of red herrings. Hence if you do start to do it you need to be very careful about what you consider the default/automatic starting point (whilst also allowing for starting an investigation earlier), otherwise it's load more of the red tape, management and money wasted that so many people go on about (usually without ever understanding the reasoning).
This case should have been ringing every alarm in the building for the management when they started getting multiple deaths in a very short space of time.
Last edited:
I think the thing that winds me up the most, is how you have seven doctors - all highly intelligent, highly trained, highly regarded, who have all come to the same conclusion in the field they specialise in, and the pig-headed management (who don't know anything about medicine or babies) basically said "..... nah m8..."
The crime itself is shocking, but the attempts by management to throw it under the carpet are absolutely heinous.
Worth a watch (interview with one of the doctors, Dr Ravi)
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,304
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Because we had so much trouble with Stafford Hospital deaths, now County Hospital, our Trust is on the ball.
Earlier this year two strange deaths occurred on a ward and I was involved getting records to the Police and Experts.
It was all kept quiet between Clinicians who reported it, the Police and my department to see if another happened and it just turned out to be two unexpected RIPs.
It was a lot of work but our Trust takes these figures seriously since Stafford Hospital.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 13,243
- Location
- London
Yeah this monster and all the previous ones that didn’t turn up for sentencing should be dragged to court, just cuff them to a wheelchair chuck a hood over their head if need be. Screw their human rights.
Last edited:
It would be mind boggling if she didn't.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 3,956
- Location
- Uranus
In regards to making her go to the sentencing if she refuses to go what are you gonna do, roll her out hannibal lecter style?
It is precisely in cases like these that human rights matter most. It's easy to treat good people well.
I can't see any justification for forcing attendance at sentencing. Although there's perhaps an argument for letting judges take it into account when setting sentences.
I think it's important.
As a defendant, I think you should have the right to skip the trial, however once you've been found guilty the purpose of the system is to serve justice, and justice must be seen to be served, in order for it to be served properly - I think the offender must be present for sentencing.
It's important because the families and/or victims need closure, to see the offender in the dock being sentenced I think is an important part of getting the closure they deserve.
I also don't see how being forced to go to a sentencing hearing violates any human rights, we'll be forcing them into a prison cell whether they like it or not, so I don't see how that argument stacks up.
Last edited:
Yes.
Horrible
BBC live feed
It would be great to see people like Wizzkidy and Dialup telling these parents that all the evidence against Letby was circumstantial and that she should have been granted anonymity.
Apparently the judges sentencing remarks will be televised later (live I presume)
(according to the BBC)
Edit
Apparently the government is changing the law regarding sentencing laws, to force/compel the offender to be present during sentencing.
(Sunak said this in an interview earlier)
(according to the BBC)
Edit
Apparently the government is changing the law regarding sentencing laws, to force/compel the offender to be present during sentencing.
(Sunak said this in an interview earlier)
Last edited:
The person found guilty is going to jail whether they attend or not. It has rather too much of a "tar and feather" feel for my tastes; the justice system should not be seeking to humiliate nor satisfy the thirst for vengeance. There is no clear benefit in terms of rehabilitation, deterrent, or protection of the public for forcing defendants to attend sentencing. I note as well that this seems a very knee jerk reaction to a very unusual case to me. It is my understanding that defendants nearly always attend sentencing and while things might seem clear cut in this case, there are many other cases that are greyer that will also be affected by such a law.
I agree there is no human rights violation in it, I was making a more general point.
I think you need to weigh up two things;
The first is the humility, sensitivity, feelings and rights of the offender.
The second is justice, the family and closure they get from the sentencing hearing.
I think, that the families/victims right to justice and seeing it be done in a courtroom by a judge - in the flesh, is more important than the "rights" or "feelings" of the offender, in light of the crime.