Force them into court for sentencing.

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.*

The victims' families are not entitled to such a show.

The due process of law is not to psychologically torment the accused for the visceral satisfaction of the accuser. For me, your proposal is in the same category of criminal "justice" as celebrating prison rape as something an inmate deserves for their crimes: That is, your proposal is evil.
 
The victims' families are not entitled to such a show.

The due process of law is not to psychologically torment the accused for the visceral satisfaction of the accuser. For me, your proposal is in the same category of criminal "justice" as celebrating prison rape as something an inmate deserves for their crimes: That is, your proposal is evil.

It is not me that wants them dragged into court for sentencing. The heartbroken mother of nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel wanted to tell the man who recklessly and thuggishly shot her daughter dead (a 'wrong' person killing) wanted to tell the gangland convict the impact of his wanton behaviour. Thomas Cashman cowered in his cell rather than face the judge for sentencing. He, too, pleaded not guilty, forcing the family of his victim to sit through the agonising details of his depraved criminality.

But lo and behold it turns out Olivia's Mum is the 'evil' one by your reckoning.

Telling a criminal the impact of their crime does not equate to baying for their rape in prison.
 
It is not me that wants them dragged into court for sentencing. The heartbroken mother of nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel wanted to tell the man who recklessly and thuggishly shot her daughter dead (a 'wrong' person killing) wanted to tell the gangland convict the impact of his wanton behaviour. Thomas Cashman cowered in his cell rather than face the judge for sentencing. He, too, pleaded not guilty, forcing the family of his victim to sit through the agonising details of his depraved criminality.

But lo and behold it turns out Olivia's Mum is the 'evil' one by your reckoning.

Telling a criminal the impact of their crime does not equate to baying for their rape in prison.

I'm not saying she's evil for wanting that. I'm saying it would be evil to arrange our justice system to grant that kind of entitlement. The same category of evil, though to a (much) lesser degree, as celebrating prison rape as just deserts.

I do not want our justice system to be a venue where the perpetrator is made to suffer at the hands of the victim.
 
It is not me that wants them dragged into court for sentencing. The heartbroken mother of nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel wanted to tell the man who recklessly and thuggishly shot her daughter dead (a 'wrong' person killing) wanted to tell the gangland convict the impact of his wanton behaviour. Thomas Cashman cowered in his cell rather than face the judge for sentencing. He, too, pleaded not guilty, forcing the family of his victim to sit through the agonising details of his depraved criminality.

But lo and behold it turns out Olivia's Mum is the 'evil' one by your reckoning.

Telling a criminal the impact of their crime does not equate to baying for their rape in prison.

Behave

Are defendants forced in to the dock in Finland to hear sentence?
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying she's evil for wanting that. I'm saying it would be evil to arrange our justice system to grant that kind of entitlement. The same category of evil, though to a (much) lesser degree, as celebrating prison rape as just deserts.

I do not want our justice system to be a venue where the perpetrator is made to suffer at the hands of the victim.

If Mr. Big Man Cashman can strut around with a gun and terrorize the neighbourhood, I am sure he can face a broken middle-aged mother grieving for her beloved daughter.
 
If Mr. Big Man Cashman can strut around with a gun and terrorize the neighbourhood, I am sure he can face a broken middle-aged mother grieving for her beloved daughter.

Presumably people can endure lots of things that it would nevertheless be evil of us to impose on them.

Again, it's not a question of whether the perpetrator can face being made to suffer at the hands of his victims. It's a question of whether we want our justice system to be organized along such lines. I don't want that. I hope you don't either.
 
Are defendants forced into the dock in Finland to hear sentence?

There isn't a dock and yes, they are expected to be there in court.

Convicted defendants in Finland have to pay compensation out of their own pockets to their victims. Usually a modest sum but it can be substantial in a murder, hits them where it hurts; affects monies to their heirs. I am guessing you consider this also cruel, making the perpetrator literally put their hand in their pocket and pay their victim, as well as paying court costs. So traumatizing for them to be forced to acknowledge there is a direct victim of their crime.
 
Presumably people can endure lots of things that it would nevertheless be evil of us to impose on them.

Again, it's not a question of whether the perpetrator can face being made to suffer at the hands of his victims. It's a question of whether we want our justice system to be organized along such lines. I don't want that. I hope you don't either.

I am afraid it is already here. It is called Victim Impact Statements and these are already a part of the judicial process. It is a mockery that a convict can skulk in their cell and refuse to be present during this stage.

A victim impact statement is a written or oral statement made as part of the judicial legal process, which allows crime victims the opportunity to speak during the sentencing of the convicted person or at subsequent parole hearings.

Overview
One purpose of the statement is to allow the person or persons most directly affected by the crime to address the court during the decision making process. It is seen to personalize the crime and elevate the status of the victim. From the victim's point of view it is regarded as valuable in aiding their emotional recovery from their ordeal. It has also been suggested they may confront an offender with the results of their crime and thus aid rehabilitation.

Another purpose of the statement is to inform a court of the harm suffered by the victim if the court is required to, or has the option of, having regard to the harm suffered by the victim in deciding the sentence.
wiki
 
We have a totally different Criminal Justice system here based on the Germanic Napoleonic one (Roman Law). Anglo Saxon law is what we are speaking of here.

That didn't answer the question.

Are defendants forced to be in the dock for sentence?
 
There isn't a dock and yes, they are expected to be there in court.

Convicted defendants in Finland have to pay compensation out of their own pockets to their victims. Usually a modest sum but it can be substantial in a murder, hits them where it hurts; affects monies to their heirs. I am guessing you consider this also cruel, making the perpetrator literally put their hand in their pocket and pay their victim, as well as paying court costs. So traumatizing for them to be forced to acknowledge there is a direct victim of their crime.

Are they forced to be in the dock?
 
I am afraid it is already here. It is called Victim Impact Statements and these are already a part of the judicial process. It is a mockery that a convict can skulk in their cell and refuse to be present during this stage.

wiki

That's not the same thing. I'd say "and you know it" but I'm not sure that's true.
 
It depends on the grade of crime. Minor crimes can be processed through the post if there is no dispute about the facts.

Given the question you're answering this would translate as a 'Yes, for certain crimes'. Can you enlarge?
 
That's not the same thing. I'd say "and you know it" but I'm not sure that's true.

Not sure what it is you are disputing. Victim Statements are part of the sentencing process, if relevant. The presence of the defendant during this stage is soon to become mandatory as per a Bill being passed through Parliament, and as confirmed by the Prime Minister.

I cannot see what the objection is.
 
Not sure what it is you are disputing. Victim Statements are part of the sentencing process, if relevant. The presence of the defendant during this stage is soon to become mandatory as per a Bill being passed through Parliament, and as confirmed by the Prime Minister.

I cannot see what the objection is.
So, again, are the convicted gong to be dragged into court if they feel they would prefer not to be there but stay in their cell?
 
So, again, are the convicted gong to be dragged into court if they feel they would prefer not to be there but stay in their cell?

The plan is to impose a stiffer sentence and the issue of reasonable force has been mooted. After all, this is what happens when they are arrested and not even charged yet.
 
It depends on the grade of crime. Minor crimes can be processed through the post if there is no dispute about the facts.

Again you didn't answer.

In Finland are defendants forced to appear in the dock for sentence?

You want to impose it on courts in the UK. I am curious as to the situation in your adopted country.
 
This is one of the few areas in differences between different Western Judeo-Christian rules don't make a difference.

Mandatory sentencing is kind of one thing. A judge's sentence deviating from a jury's recommendation is pretty rare and opens up for appeal.

In some cases it is the judge's sole discretion on a non-plea-bargained conviction for whatever it is. As always, depends where you live. Not just internationally but within a country.

At least that's how it was explained at my sentencing. I think if I were friend or family I wouldn't want them to be present.
 
Again you didn't answer.

In Finland are defendants forced to appear in the dock for sentence?

You want to impose it on courts in the UK. I am curious as to the situation in your adopted country.

Completely irrelevant what goes in in other countries. The thread is about criminal law in England & Wales and possibly Scotland and Northern Ireland, too, if the Bill goes through (and it will as both the government and opposition support it). Anyone anywhere in the world can debate the thread.
Finland is not my adopted country, either.

Being present for sentencing is no different from being present at the police station when the charges are read out to you. At least this time, the charges are proven and you are convicted.

Produce the convicted defendant from the cells. Habeus corpus. Bring the bastard forth and have done with it. Stand up straight and look at the judge when he is addressing you. Shee-eesh.
 
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).

Well, according to Planigale's post immediately before yours, judges already do have the power to enforce attendance, and it is sometimes used (though with perhaps predictable consequences).
 
Completely irrelevant what goes in in other countries. The thread is about criminal law in England & Wales and possibly Scotland and Northern Ireland, too, if the Bill goes through (and it will as both the government and opposition support it). Anyone anywhere in the world can debate the thread.
Finland is not my adopted country, either.

Being present for sentencing is no different from being present at the police station when the charges are read out to you. At least this time, the charges are proven and you are convicted.

Produce the convicted defendant from the cells. Habeus corpus. Bring the bastard forth and have done with it. Stand up straight and look at the judge when he is addressing you. Shee-eesh.

So you still haven't answered.

I wonder why you want UK courts to use physical force to put defendants in the dock but won't tell me what they do in the country where you reside.
 
Well, according to Planigale's post immediately before yours, judges already do have the power to enforce attendance, and it is sometimes used (though with perhaps predictable consequences).
Indeed. This was mentioned during the most recent hysterical outpouring on television.
 
So you still haven't answered.

I wonder why you want UK courts to use physical force to put defendants in the dock but won't tell me what they do in the country where you reside.

Completely different system. The defendants sit with their lawyers and the appointed judges are a panel of highly qualified barristers. In a serious murder case, the prosecutor advises the judges of what the sentence should be. In those cases which are fairly complex (e.g., Anneli Auer, Lehto, etc) the sentencing will be reserved until the judges have had a chance to discuss it. These judges are always anonymous and not named in the press. Unlike the UK, it is not high theatre, with the snooty upper-class judge in horse hair wig and gown, with the lumpen prole defendant quaking and trembling before him as he bangs his gavel and declares:

"Norman Stanley Fletcher, you have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by this court, and it is now my duty to pass sentence. You are an habitual criminal, who accepts arrest as an occupational hazard, and presumably accepts imprisonment in the same casual manner. We therefore feel constrained to commit you to the maximum term allowed for these offences: you will go to prison for five years."

But actually I think the trial by twelve of your fellow peers is not bad as there is a high chance you will be acquitted, as juries tend to sympathize with the guy in the dock much to the chagrin of police and the CPS.
 
Well, according to Planigale's post immediately before yours, judges already do have the power to enforce attendance, and it is sometimes used (though with perhaps predictable consequences).

According to Justice James Goss who oversaw the Lucy Letby trial he did not have the authority to insist on Letby's presence and nor did the prison guards whose only duty was to bring the prisoner to the court from the prison she was being remanded at but not to the dock. That is why the law is being updated to give the judge the power.
 
Have you got a link to the context of where he said that?

It tells you. Sky News:


https://news.sky.com/video/lucy-let...following-killers-absence-from-court-12944711

Lucy Letby: Sir Keir Starmer wants to change the law following killer's absence from court
"I think we should change the law," says Sir Keir Starmer, after Lucy Letby stayed in the cells for her sentencing.

Monday 21 August 2023 18:22, UK

He was once Director of Public Prosecutions at the CPS so he knows all about the impact of crime on victims more than most.
 
Completely different system. The defendants sit with their lawyers and the appointed judges are a panel of highly qualified barristers. In a serious murder case, the prosecutor advises the judges of what the sentence should be. In those cases which are fairly complex (e.g., Anneli Auer, Lehto, etc) the sentencing will be reserved until the judges have had a chance to discuss it. These judges are always anonymous and not named in the press. Unlike the UK, it is not high theatre, with the snooty upper-class judge in horse hair wig and gown, with the lumpen prole defendant quaking and trembling before him as he bangs his gavel and declares:

"Norman Stanley Fletcher, you have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by this court, and it is now my duty to pass sentence. You are an habitual criminal, who accepts arrest as an occupational hazard, and presumably accepts imprisonment in the same casual manner. We therefore feel constrained to commit you to the maximum term allowed for these offences: you will go to prison for five years."

But actually I think the trial by twelve of your fellow peers is not bad as there is a high chance you will be acquitted, as juries tend to sympathize with the guy in the dock much to the chagrin of police and the CPS.

But, do Finland use force to make a defendant appear against their will in the dock for sentence?

Another question.

How much force do you think is reasonable?
If someone is determined not to go, what should be done to get them to comply?
 
Last April was not over a year ago.

It wasn't just Letby, it was also Cashman and Libby Squire's killer.

He said: “If the government wanted to do this, they could have done this a year ago.”

"We’ve got a government that is very keen on talking about problems and not very good at solving them.

“The latest case with Olivia’s family in Liverpool was an awful example. But it’s not the only example. There are other cases where exactly the same thing has happened.

“We need to change the law. We’ve got to stop this. I think it’s very important that we put ourselves in the shoes of the families and relatives of victims here and they feel very strongly about this.

“They were not able to hide from the perpetrators’ offences and the perpetrator shouldn’t be able to hide from justice and so we’ve got to change the law here.”

The mother of murdered student Libby Squire has also called for a change to ensure criminals who avoid sentencing hearings are handed longer jail terms. She joined the murdered teacher Sabina Nessa’s sister in calling for killers to be forced to attend court .
Independent
 
But, do Finland use force to make a defendant appear against their will in the dock for sentence?

Another question.

How much force do you think is reasonable?
If someone is determined not to go, what should be done to get them to comply?

Police here are armed and pretty tough. They are a strong presence at notorious court cases. I can't think of any case where the defendant was allowed to say no thanks, I'd rather not be at the verdict and sentencing.

If reasonable force can be used to arrest someone (who has a high chance of never being found guilty) then I cannot see why it cannot be used in court.

Not everybody is potty-mouthed and uncouth. Not all of them are going to kick up a stink.

Look at Russell Bishop, sexually assaulted and murdered two little girls. Found not guilty. The girls' parents had to watch Bishop smirking and gloating from the dock. Thanks to new DNA and the abolishing of the double jeopardy concept, Bishop was found guilty later. Yes, drag him into court and watch whether he smirks this time.

What do you think happens when a convicted criminal is led away to prison? Do you think they all come quietly?
 
What force would you think is reasonable?
Would threatening with a gun make a difference?

Say I refused to leave the cell.
How would you get me in to the dock if I resisted?
 
What force would you think is reasonable?
Would threatening with a gun make a difference?

Say I refused to leave the cell.
How would you get me in to the dock if I resisted?

How do you think you got in the cell in the first place? If you were Letby you would likely have been forcibly escorted from HMP Wakefield, forcibly led to a prison van and forcibly brought to Warrington Magistrates and then Manchester for the trial. Think hard.
 
How much force do you think should be used?

Defendants refuse to attend trial all the time.
 
Sorry, I'm not understanding where all this sympathy for convicted people not appearing in court is coming from in this thread.

Now I don't know what kind of slack-arse laws you all have in your countries, but I can tell you none of that crap is tolerated here.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/...ting-yourself-criminal-high-court/sentencing/

"If you plead guilty to, or are found guilty of, an offence, a sentencing hearing will be scheduled and the court will adjourn your case until the date of this sentencing hearing. The court will decide whether you should be remanded on bail or kept in custody until the date of your sentencing hearing.

You will be notified of the date, time and place you are required to report for sentencing. It is important to note that you are required to attend. If you fail to do so, the court may issue a warrant for your arrest."

We regard the judge as the absolute, unquestioned ruler in his court. His word is law and he must be obeyed (the only exception being an unlawful command). If he tells you that you will appear in his court at a specific time and date, and you don't turn up, then you are in contempt of court and the judge is well within his rights to issue a warrant for your arrest.

A judge will tell you, the convicted defendant, that you must come to his court for sentencing (time and date) and there is no choice in the matter for you. Attendance is not optional, it is mandatory. Should you fail to show, then the judge is well within the law to have the bailiff arrange for you to be physically brought to the court, in handcuffs if necessary, dragged kicking and screaming if necessary.

And this is how it should be!
 
Last edited:
Police here are armed and pretty tough. They are a strong presence at notorious court cases. I can't think of any case where the defendant was allowed to say no thanks, I'd rather not be at the verdict and sentencing.

If reasonable force can be used to arrest someone (who has a high chance of never being found guilty) then I cannot see why it cannot be used in court.

Not everybody is potty-mouthed and uncouth. Not all of them are going to kick up a stink.

Look at Russell Bishop, sexually assaulted and murdered two little girls. Found not guilty. The girls' parents had to watch Bishop smirking and gloating from the dock. Thanks to new DNA and the abolishing of the double jeopardy concept, Bishop was found guilty later. Yes, drag him into court and watch whether he smirks this time.

What do you think happens when a convicted criminal is led away to prison? Do you think they all come quietly?
If you don't know the answer, just say so.
 

Back
Top Bottom