Force them into court for sentencing.

Nessie

Penultimate Amazing
Nessie
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
16,053
There have been some high profile cases, where the accused, on being found not guilty, has then refused to attend their sentencing. Lucy Letby, the nurse who murdered children, is the most recent. She was apparently in the court building, but she refused to go into the court room to hear the sentence being imposed.

The government proposal is to force the convicted to go to court, by force if necessary and if they do not go, they face an extra two years. That would be pointless for Letby, who was given a whole life sentence.

I also think it is potentially cruel, for victims of miscarriages of justice, to have to face sentencing for something they did not do and the present criminal justice system treats those victims horrifically.

I also suspect the law will not be imposed as people do fight back, or cause a disturbance in the court. It would also be easy to make the convicted listen to their sentencing, by fitting a speaker to the court cell.
 
Remember we are back to the usual tory single policy: the policy of getting them favourable headlines with the media.

There are no plans to make this happen, there is no sincere consideration being given to it.
 
I don't see the point.The punishment for the crime is the sentence itself, not listening to it being announced.
 
sphenisc said:
I don't see the point.The punishment for the crime is the sentence itself, not listening to it being announced.
Click to expand...

And what sort of force will be used? Gagged to stop them screaming to disrupt the court, eyes being forced open so they can see what is happening?
 
Wouldn’t it be quicker and simpler to drag the offenders from their cells straight to the scaffold and just send them a text with confirmation of their sentence?
 
There was an interview with the father of a murder victim, whose murderer was one of those who refused to attend court for sentencing. what was interesting was he was a prison officer so had professional insight; he was not in favour. Indeed he said judges did currently have authority to require the guilty person to attend court in person, and as a prison officer had brought such a person into court. All that had happened was that the guilty person had sworn at the victim and family and made disrespectful comments and had had to be sent out of court to allow things to proceed. His view was that it was a poor policy, first because judges already had the authority to do so and second because it was not very practical.
 
In general, people on trial (including those being tried on the most heinous charges) want to - and/or are strongly advised by their legal counsel to - attend court and behave themselves while they're there. Non-attendance during the trial, or attendance with bad behaviour during the trial, clearly make the defendant look bad in front of the jury... and may therefore harm the defendant's chances when it comes to deliberation and verdict*.

However, once a verdict has been returned, the game changes. And it changes in an interesting psychological way. Firstly, defendants' lawyers know that judges are required to sentence purely based upon the facts of the case and any prior criminal history. A judge should not be swayed by the defendant's refusal to appear at sentencing - indeed, if a judge were to significantly increase the severity of the sentence on those grounds, it would be appealable in many jurisdictions.

Nevertheless, many people convicted of all but the most serious crimes willingly attend their sentencing. The feeling - rightly or wrongly - is that if they respect the court this might provide even the smallest crumb of mitigation when it comes to sentencing.

However.... when it comes to someone like Letby, there was nothing whatsoever she could hope to gain by attending her sentencing. Her lawyers would have made it very clear to her that the multiple guilty verdicts meant an almost-certain whole-of-life tariff, which is the most severe sentence English & Welsh courts can hand down. I suspect that many, even most, people in her situation would similarly refuse to attend sentencing.

As some others have pointed out in this thread, it's hardly as if the courts can use any and all force to compel people - whether defendants on trial, or convicted people being sentenced - to attend. As I say, almost all defendants on trial willingly attend court, and most convicted people willingly attend court for sentencing (for the reasons given above). But when you remove all incentive, as in the Letby situation, then in reality there's nothing that can be done to make the person attend court (let alone behave with decorum and decency when they're there).


* Of course, this shouldn't be the case: the jury should base their deliberations and verdicts purely on the evidence and testimony presented in the trial. But in the real world, it's not difficult to figure out that an absent or misbehaving defendant might play rather badly in front of a jury and thus have an effect - whether consciously or subconsciously - upon the jury's assessment of guilt/non-guilt.
 
Darat said:
Remember we are back to the usual tory single policy: the policy of getting them favourable headlines with the media.

There are no plans to make this happen, there is no sincere consideration being given to it.
Click to expand...


Well, erm, all political parties - especially those in power - are explicitly in the business of getting themselves favourable headlines with the media.

I don't think it was at all unreasonable for ministers to react to the public & media outrage about Letby refusing to attend sentencing. And I don't think it was at all unreasonable for ministers to say that they were looking into making it mandatory for convicted people to attend their sentencing.

I suspect of course that they already knew full well that there was - and is - no way whatsoever that convicted people can be forced to attend their sentencing. But just imagine if a government minister had reacted to the public & media outrage over Letby by saying something like "Well yes, we share the sense of outrage.... but we know that there's no way a convicted person can be forced to attend their sentencing, so there's no point in even talking about it any further".
 
LondonJohn said:
Well, erm, all political parties - especially those in power - are explicitly in the business of getting themselves favourable headlines with the media.

I don't think it was at all unreasonable for ministers to react to the public & media outrage about Letby refusing to attend sentencing. And I don't think it was at all unreasonable for ministers to say that they were looking into making it mandatory for convicted people to attend their sentencing.

I suspect of course that they already knew full well that there was - and is - no way whatsoever that convicted people can be forced to attend their sentencing. But just imagine if a government minister had reacted to the public & media outrage over Letby by saying something like "Well yes, we share the sense of outrage.... but we know that there's no way a convicted person can be forced to attend their sentencing, so there's no point in even talking about it any further".
Click to expand...
There's at least one obvious way a convicted person can be forced to attend their sentencing: Pass a law requiring their attendance, and empowering law enforcement agencies to enforce that law.
 
I tend to agree that if the sentence is fair, it should manage to be so by itself. If a convicted criminal acts like a criminal still, well what did you expect? Instant rehabilitation? That's what the sentence is supposed to be for. And if they're guilty and know it, they already know it. If you're about to be put away for life for doing something awful, you already know what you are and you already know what the court thinks of you. And if a convicted suspect proclaiming his innocence turns out to be innocent, nailing him for aggravating contrariness will come back to haunt.

The whole thing seems kind of petty.
 
theprestige said:
There's at least one obvious way a convicted person can be forced to attend their sentencing: Pass a law requiring their attendance, and empowering law enforcement agencies to enforce that law.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure convicted attend their sentencings most of the time. They'll listen to the victims' impact statement and apologize and ask for mercy. Or be defiant and belligerent and scream their innocence. Oftentimes in between.

I don't think a new law is going to change things all that much besides satisfaction of watching head hanging down at a table until it's over.
 
Darat said:
And what sort of force will be used? Gagged to stop them screaming to disrupt the court, eyes being forced open so they can see what is happening?
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should go full Clockwork Orange and give them nausea inducing medication while their crimes are being listed?
 
Cat Not Included said:
Was that supposed to be 'on being found guilty'?
Click to expand...

Yes. When I wrote it, I was thinking of Andrew Malkinson, Luke Mitchell and all the post office managers, who were present for their sentencing, hearing their punishment for a crime they did not commit.
 
LondonJohn said:
...A judge should not be swayed by the defendant's refusal to appear at sentencing...
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the Judge decides the sentence before they find out if the convicted person will be attending or not, on the assumption they will attend, so they cannot be swayed by non-attendance.

Judges also have to abide by Sentencing Council guidelines, that presently do not include provision to increase the sentence if the convicted person does not attend.
 
Nessie said:
There have been some high profile cases, where the accused, on being found not guilty, has then refused to attend their sentencing. Lucy Letby, the nurse who murdered children, is the most recent. She was apparently in the court building, but she refused to go into the court room to hear the sentence being imposed.

The government proposal is to force the convicted to go to court, by force if necessary and if they do not go, they face an extra two years. That would be pointless for Letby, who was given a whole life sentence.

I also think it is potentially cruel, for victims of miscarriages of justice, to have to face sentencing for something they did not do and the present criminal justice system treats those victims horrifically.

I also suspect the law will not be imposed as people do fight back, or cause a disturbance in the court. It would also be easy to make the convicted listen to their sentencing, by fitting a speaker to the court cell.
Click to expand...

A summons to court is only an invitation anyway, as it were. The security guards can bring you to court if you are on remand but their job finishes there. If you don't turn up there can be a warrant issued and then you are brought to the dock. If reasonable force can bring you before the beak then I cannot see why reasonable force cannot bring a heinous criminal to face the consequences of his or her actions instead of cowardly cowering in the cells below.
 
Darat said:
Remember we are back to the usual tory single policy: the policy of getting them favourable headlines with the media.

There are no plans to make this happen, there is no sincere consideration being given to it.
Click to expand...

Labour tried to bring this in IIRC over a year ago. It is just like this government to shut the stable door once the horse has bolted.
 
Darat said:
And what sort of force will be used? Gagged to stop them screaming to disrupt the court, eyes being forced open so they can see what is happening?
Click to expand...

Yes, why not. Letby made newborn babies scream in agony. Let her have ten minutes of reprimand from the judge and face the parents of her victims.
 
Bring back the days when convicted murderers were forced to watch the judge solemnly put on his black cap.
 
Vixen said:
A summons to court is only an invitation anyway, as it were. The security guards can bring you to court if you are on remand but their job finishes there. If you don't turn up there can be a warrant issued and then you are brought to the dock. If reasonable force can bring you before the beak then I cannot see why reasonable force cannot bring a heinous criminal to face the consequences of his or her actions instead of cowardly cowering in the cells below.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Yes, why not. Letby made newborn babies scream in agony. Let her have ten minutes of reprimand from the judge and face the parents of her victims.
Click to expand...

At least we know what is included in your definition of "reasonable force" - "eyes being forced open so they can see what is happening"
 
novaphile said:
Perhaps we should go full Clockwork Orange and give them nausea inducing medication while their crimes are being listed?
Click to expand...
Good recall.
Ludwig Van.

From the wiki plot summary

"Alex is strapped to a chair, his eyes are clamped open, and he is injected with drugs. He is then forced to watch films of sex and violence, some of which are accompanied by the music of his favourite composer, Ludwig van Beethoven. Alex becomes nauseated by the films and, fearing the technique will make him sick upon hearing Beethoven, begs for an end to the treatment.:
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Labour tried to bring this in IIRC over a year ago. It is just like this government to shut the stable door once the horse has bolted.
Click to expand...

Doesn't ring any bells with me. Have you got a link?
 
Won't matter a whit if the sentencing is in absentia or not. Felons who flee often get such sentences. So if they have the cojones to face the [jury and] judge to hear their fate, or cower in a cell with their fingers in their ears, or even play another round of golf while living in their tacky Florida lair, the sentence is still going to be carried out soon enough whether they like to pretend it won't or not.

But if you want to ensure the convicted do face the judge, you could always impose a condition/law that failure to attend sentencing in person will completely remove any possibility of appeal of that sentence or possibility of parole (i.e. Donny's favourite tactic to delay the inevitable). So turn up and perhaps try to appeal the severity, or chicken out and take what comes - a "double or nothing" option.
 
PitPat said:
I'm pretty sure convicted attend their sentencings most of the time. They'll listen to the victims' impact statement and apologize and ask for mercy. Or be defiant and belligerent and scream their innocence. Oftentimes in between.

I don't think a new law is going to change things all that much besides satisfaction of watching head hanging down at a table until it's over.
Click to expand...

I don't think it needs to be done. I just disagree with those who say it can't be done.
 
Darat said:
At least we know what is included in your definition of "reasonable force" - "eyes being forced open so they can see what is happening"
Click to expand...

Where do I say, 'Eyes being forced open?'

If the convicted defendant wants to shout and swear then why not, it gives us an insight into their character.
 
Vixen said:
Where do I say, 'Eyes being forced open?'

If the convicted defendant wants to shout and swear then why not, it gives us an insight into their character.
Click to expand...


I posted: Gagged to stop them screaming to disrupt the court, eyes being forced open so they can see what is happening?

You said: Yes, why not
 
Vixen said:
Where do I say, 'Eyes being forced open?'

If the convicted defendant wants to shout and swear then why not, it gives us an insight into their character.
Click to expand...

And it dumps new distress on the families and friends of the victims.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Won't matter a whit if the sentencing is in absentia or not. Felons who flee often get such sentences. So if they have the cojones to face the [jury and] judge to hear their fate, or cower in a cell with their fingers in their ears, or even play another round of golf while living in their tacky Florida lair, the sentence is still going to be carried out soon enough whether they like to pretend it won't or not.

But if you want to ensure the convicted do face the judge, you could always impose a condition/law that failure to attend sentencing in person will completely remove any possibility of appeal of that sentence or possibility of parole (i.e. Donny's favourite tactic to delay the inevitable). So turn up and perhaps try to appeal the severity, or chicken out and take what comes - a "double or nothing" option.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Whilst I said tongue-in-cheek that convicted murderers should again witness a judge pulling on a black cap, I am actually against the death penalty and the 'whole life' tariff for the very reason that an essential element of justice is mercy. There must always be recognition that a person can change, can come to feel genuine remorse and can be redeemed back into society. How often that ever happens or how it can be assessed and measured is another question, but that option should be left on the table. For example, Anders Brevik, murderer of 77 (IIRC) people including many minors, gets to have a parole hearing every 12-15 years or so. He will never get out, especially not when he appears in the dock with a Caesar's Salute and ranting about his nazi manifesto, and Beverley Allit & Charles Bronson (or whatever he is called these days) regularly fail to win release on licence.

Some of these serial killers are so heinous that were they ever to comprehend the true horror of their crimes of killing completely random strangers with no feeling at all, they would likely want to top themselves anyway. In a way, it is a good job, psychopaths (such as diagnosed Joanna Denehy) rarely do, as their crimes would surely devastate them. There is one serial killer in the USA in jail for life in a non-death penalty state, the so-called BTK Killer, whose crimes are so sickening (don't read about them if you have a sensitive disposition!) that one has an element of resenting their relatively cushy life in jail with TV, internet, smart phones, gym, etc.

But it is important IMV to allow Appeals. All judges decisions can be appealed and that is as it should be. Giving someone a whole life tariff breaches the ECHR Human Rights Act that every prisoner serving life should be allowed to have their sentence reviewed after a set period of time (as is the case in Norway and with Anders Brevik).

If the Human Rights Act is honoured then adding an extra two years onto a sentence for the aggravating act of refusing to appear for sentencing would make sense and would serve to help focus the mind of defiant defendants who have nothing but contempt for the court and the victim's loved ones.
 
GlennB said:
And it dumps new distress on the families and friends of the victims.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It makes the families have the satisfaction of seeing that the verdict was the right one. The judge still has the power to remove a disruptive person from court.
 
Vixen said:
If the convicted defendant wants to shout and swear then why not,
Click to expand...
Because it disrupts the proceedings of the court, that's why not.

it gives us an insight into their character.
Click to expand...
They've already been tried and convicted of a crime. We don't really need more insight into their character. You're solving a problem nobody actually has.
 
novaphile said:
Perhaps we should go full Clockwork Orange and give them nausea inducing medication while their crimes are being listed?
Click to expand...

That was my thought too.

OT: I used to watch movies in that very cinema (actually a lecture theatre at Brunel University)
 
Vixen said:
I disagree. It makes the families have the satisfaction of seeing that the verdict was the right one. The judge still has the power to remove a disruptive person from court.
Click to expand...

I don't think you thought that out as you are then right back with them not being in court to hear and be forced to witness the sentencing.
 
Darat said:
I don't think you thought that out as you are then right back with them not being in court to hear and be forced to witness the sentencing.
Click to expand...

You don't know in advance they'll be disruptive. In the Letby case, when the first couple of verdicts came in on 8 August 2023, she burst into tears. This is what the victims' families want to see.* Especially after her flippant arrogant demeanour in the dock and her belief that the court would buy her defence that she was just a victim of workplace bullying. She refused to turn up for the next two sets of verdicts and the sentencing.

*How this works. You catapult a rubber at me <thwang!> and teacher sees you. Teacher throws the blackboard duster at you or gives you detention. Your wobbly chin is my recompense.
 
Vixen said:
You don't know in advance they'll be disruptive. In the Letby case, when the first couple of verdicts came in on 8 August 2023, she burst into tears. This is what the victims' families want to see.* Especially after her flippant arrogant demeanour in the dock and her belief that the court would buy her defence that she was just a victim of workplace bullying. She refused to turn up for the next two sets of verdicts and the sentencing.

*How this works. You catapult a rubber at me <thwang!> and teacher sees you. Teacher throws the blackboard duster at you or gives you detention. Your wobbly chin is my recompense.
Click to expand...

As I said you didn't think it through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom