Nurse arrested for murdering babies

SexyGreyFox said:
Just playing Devil's Advocate but what if the accused honestly 100% believe they didn't do it?
Click to expand...

I think it's largely irrelevant at that point, they can appeal their conviction or sentence afterwards if they wish.

If we grant an offenders wish to skip things, because they say they didn't do it, sounds like a slippery slope - where the offender could take control and start to play games with the system.

Judges remarks live now,
 
Last edited:
Vanquish-Storm said:
What would be a false positive? If a certain hospital or ward ended up above average for any reason it should be investigated and documented why no?
Click to expand...

Half of all wards would be above average by default.* You'd just want to flag up outliers for investigation.

(*granted it's a discrete variable and so some may be exactly average also the distribution of deaths may be skewed so it might not be half if you're looking at the mean rather than the median but you get the point I hope.)

Screeeech said:
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?
Click to expand...

Might as well, what happens if they don't want to turn up to the trial currently? Presumably, they're just dragged in there regardless, I'm not sure why they get any option to skip the sentencing part, they're not free people, they should be dragged in there if that's what it takes.

Mr Jack said:
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.
Click to expand...

It takes away from the victim impact statements if the guilty party isn't present to hear them. The judge is supposed to go off legislation and established sentencing norms, it's the guilty party who needs to face up to what they've done. I guess the general public gets to hear them in this case too (as it's a well reported on trial) but in the general case, this is surely the opportunity for the victims to speak up and address the guilty party and explain how this has affected them.

I'm not sure you can, in the general case, say there is no benefit re: rehabilitation either, at least not in cases where someone convicted of a lesser offence and who will be released some day has a bit of a conscience and does feel some remorse for what they did, hearing first hand the impact on the victims could certainly add to that.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
Might as well, what happens if they don't want to turn up to the trial currently? Presumably, they're just dragged in there regardless, I'm not sure why they get any option to skip the sentencing part, they're not free people, they should be dragged in there if that's what it takes.
Click to expand...

It's actually quite interesting, as I think previously there have been some incidents where the defendant(s) have turned the courtroom into a madhouse (Lee Rigby trial) and they've had to be removed.

I just think the court system needs to get tough, physically restrain them, spithood if need be.

Currently AFAIK, if you refuse to go to the trial or sentencing and sit in the holding cell for the whole thing, I think it's contempt of court and the judge can impose additional tariffs, however if you're in for the mass murder of babies - I doubt the offender would care.
 
I wish the camera and audio would keep on the case instead of cutting away.

Don't the babies deserve to be named, so we know they were real people?

If they don't want to name the babies then use the code letters that they have been using during the case.
 
BowdonUK said:
I wish the camera and audio would keep on the case instead of cutting away.

Don't the babies deserve to be named, so we know they were real people?

If they don't want to name the babies then use the code letters that they have been using during the case.
Click to expand...
The anonymity is to protect the families from press intrusion and using terms like baby 2 would be very insensitive when making sentencing remarks describing what the babies went through
 
Last edited:
Injecting air into the venous blood system of babies, for me contains a level of malice and cruelty which sends chills down my spine, it really does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom