[News] Can you really make offenders attend sentencing?

[The Rivet]

Didn’t you? When was that?

When was what? If you are talking about victim statements it was 2001......... Unsurprisingly I'm not a whippersnapper!

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Three women raped by same man team up to seek changes to court cases

The women say they were "battered and bruised" by the legal process that led to a serial rapist being jailed.

www.bbc.co.uk

Those involved in the Justice system clearly should be challenged on how they are delivering justice. Theirs is not the only opinion that counts.

 

[The Rivet]

Three women raped by same man team up to seek changes to court cases

The women say they were "battered and bruised" by the legal process that led to a serial rapist being jailed.

www.bbc.co.uk

Those involved in the Justice system clearly should be challenged on how they are delivering justice. Theirs is not the only opinion that counts.

Can you expand that a bit? 'Those delivering justice', you mean the advocates and judge?

 

[jessiejames]

No you can't. The manpower required to forcibly pick someone up and drag them into court and then keep them there will be expensive and disproportionate. And what if they decide to scream and shout, kick off, spit, etc how will that be managed? Do we really want to add this burden to the courts and police?

Its cowardly and disgusting but if the person knows they are getting banged up I can see why they would not want to attend. What does forcing them to attend achieve? If they don't want to listen to the bereaved families or similar they'll just put their fingers in their ears and ignore.

Impack statements.

 

[junior]

A barrister talking about it on Channel 4 News just now - Kate Bex KC. Basically saying there is concern that the guilty person would just treat it as an opportunity to upset/anger people more - laugh, “I’d do it again” etc etc. and she was talking from long experience of the Criminal Justice System. Then a Senior Prison Officer saying similar things.

the prisoners have no reason or incentive to act with respect. It could quite easily make the experience for the victims far worse, particularly if the prisoner is forced to be there. Personally I think it’s daft.

As has been said several times on this thread already...

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Can you expand that a bit? 'Those delivering justice', you mean the advocates and judge?

I was responding to the idea advanced by several posters on this thread that the legal system knows best and listening to victims of crime is ‘populism.’ In the article I linked the victims of crimes were unhappy with their treatment by prosecution lawyers and in the Korbel and Letby cases the victims are unhappy with the sentencing process. I just think it’s not good enough to dismiss these views.

 

[Mr Bridger]

If the perpetrator of any heinous crime, as in the case of Letby, refused to attend the sentencing I would like the impact statements that are read out in their absence, recorded and then played back to them in their cells, every single day for the rest of their miserable f****** lives.

 

[The Rivet]

I was responding to the idea advanced by several posters on this thread that the legal system knows best and listening to victims of crime is ‘populism.’ In the article I linked the victims of crimes were unhappy with their treatment by prosecution lawyers and in the Korbel and Letby cases the victims are unhappy with the sentencing process. I just think it’s not good enough to dismiss these views.

I wouldn't have thought it was prosecution lawyers they were necessarily unhappy with. Could be wrong but in the case of the girls in Scotland it appears they are not happy with our adversarial justice system and the role of defense Lawyers to cast doubt in the course of doing their job. What exactly are Korbel and Letby victims unhappy with in the sentencing process?

 

[The Rivet]

If the perpetrator of any heinous crime, as in the case of Letby, refused to attend the sentencing I would like the impact statements that are read out in their absence, recorded and then played back to them in their cells, every single day for the rest of their miserable f****** lives.

So....there we have it. The reason victims are unhappy. In our system judicial vengeance (verbal or otherwise) is the sole responsibility of the Judges and their rights to pass sentence. It's difficult but there you are.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

When was what? If you are talking about victim statements it was 2001......... Unsurprisingly I'm not a whippersnapper!

1996. Even now only half of the victims get their statements read out even with Victim Support.

 

[The Rivet]

1996. Even now only half of the victims get their statements read out even with Victim Support.

1996? Really............well there is the problem. It may be uncomfortable to discuss but having been involved in the judicial system in my experience, defendants are prepared for the judge taking perhaps five minutes berating and sentencing. Different event entirely when it could be two hours of beration by members of the public (yes, victims) Criminals are violent, disrespectful belligerent and highly difficult to handle. Sunak is on a 'loser'!

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I wouldn't have thought it was prosecution lawyers they were necessarily unhappy with. Could be wrong but in the case of the girls in Scotland it appears they are not happy with our adversarial justice system and the role of defense Lawyers to cast doubt in the course of doing their job. What exactly are Korbel and Letby victims unhappy with in the sentencing process?

Sorry, I meant defence lawyers. And yes, they were unhappy that the impact of the language used deters people from reporting crime.
Korbel/Letby the victims are unhappy that the convicted person could choose whether to appear in court to be sentenced.
The point I am making is that there are people unhappy with the manner in which justice is delivered so it is clearly inadequate to defer to the justice system alone. Other opinions matter as well.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Three women raped by same man team up to seek changes to court cases

The women say they were "battered and bruised" by the legal process that led to a serial rapist being jailed.

www.bbc.co.uk

Those involved in the Justice system clearly should be challenged on how they are delivering justice. Theirs is not the only opinion that counts.

I have tried to keep politics out of this thread but as someone who worked in the CJS, I have to state this. It has been completely demolished since 2010.
20,000 fewer police, 50% of all magistrates courts closed and buildings sold off. Victim Support reduced, and last year 95% of all crimes weren’t resolved. Police stations have been sold.
when I retired in 2014, there were just 12 people doing my job, compared to 32 when I started in 2006.
it is virtually impossible to do a good job, as everyone is so stretched, they are about to break. It was all done in the name of austerity, but it is at breaking point. In fact, it is broken.
it just isn’t a public service any more.

 

[The Rivet]

Sorry, I meant defence lawyers. And yes, they were unhappy that the impact of the language used deters people from reporting crime.
Korbel/Letby the victims are unhappy that the convicted person could choose whether to appear in court to be sentenced.
The point I am making is that there are people unhappy with the manner in which justice is delivered so it is clearly inadequate to defer to the justice system alone. Other opinions matter as well.

Fair enough. If you could change it what would you change? Oh as an addendum what 'language used' exactly?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I have tried to keep politics out of this thread but as someone who worked in the CJS, I have to state this. It has been completely demolished since 2010.
20,000 fewer police, 50% of all magistrates courts closed and buildings sold off. Victim Support reduced, and last year 95% of all crimes weren’t resolved. Police stations have been sold.
when I retired in 2014, there were just 12 people doing my job, compared to 32 when I started in 2006.
it is virtually impossible to do a good job, as everyone is so stretched, they are about to break. It was all done in the name of austerity, but it is at breaking point. In fact, it is broken.
it just isn’t a public service any more.

Fair enough but that isn’t what the three women are complaining about.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Fair enough. If you could change it what would you change? Oh as an addendum what 'language used' exactly?

It was this that I was referring to ;

It was inhumane," said Hannah Reid. "It's really horrific the way that victims are treated specifically in sexual assault cases. You are not really told your rights. You're told the rights of the accused.
"He had guidance and support the entire length of the process, and we were left completely in the dark, having no idea what to expect."
Hannah McLaughlan added: "There needs to be stricter guidelines on what defence lawyers can say to a victim giving evidence because you aren't treated like a human.
"You're just treated like a bit of evidence and it's disgusting. It's so re-traumatising the things that they get away with saying to you.
"It became like an emotional combat between myself and the defence lawyer. It was relentless and and I didn't think he was ever going to give in."

That’s no way to deal with traumatized victims. At the very least defence lawyers need training in how to speak to people giving evidence in such cases.

 

[The Clamp]

Tories pandering to their right wing fan-base. The sort of pandering that only leads to damage.

Personally I think the convicted person should be sent off to serve their term without having to be there at the sentencing. No need to give them another day in court.

 

[The Clamp]

It's a good headline, but from a practical point of view I don't see how it would work.

And that just about sums this government up.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It was this that I was referring to ;

It was inhumane," said Hannah Reid. "It's really horrific the way that victims are treated specifically in sexual assault cases. You are not really told your rights. You're told the rights of the accused.
"He had guidance and support the entire length of the process, and we were left completely in the dark, having no idea what to expect."
Hannah McLaughlan added: "There needs to be stricter guidelines on what defence lawyers can say to a victim giving evidence because you aren't treated like a human.
"You're just treated like a bit of evidence and it's disgusting. It's so re-traumatising the things that they get away with saying to you.
"It became like an emotional combat between myself and the defence lawyer. It was relentless and and I didn't think he was ever going to give in."

That’s no way to deal with traumatized victims. At the very least defence lawyers need training in how to speak to people giving evidence in such cases.

Unfortunately it is the job of the defence lawyer to break down the evidence of the alleged victim so the jury has a clearer picture of the case to be able to deliver a fair verdict.
it’s rough but that’s life.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

As has been said several times on this thread already...

Your point being?
I was mentioning the stated views of two seasoned professionals - one a barrister and a King’s Council, which is not given away on cereal packets, the other a very senior person in the prison service. They have decades of experience of the criminal justice system between them. Their views are worth listening to.
if you are not interested, then fair enough..