Yes they should. The poor babies were not given the “choice” to live yet this monster is allowed to “choose” if she wants to listen to her verdict. There is something seriously wrong with our judicial system.
gag them, spit mask, use a restraint chair. simple. Police can drag an autistic teen out her home for a non crime, yet they cant force a CONVICTED BABY MURDERER to hear sentence, this country is a broken mess
In America, the defendant is required to be in the court room, standing, while the verdict is read. Whether they are found guilty, or innocent, they are required to be in the court room. They are also required to be in the court room when sentencing is read. Sentencing is done at a later date, after they have been found guilty. They must also listen to victim statements, in court. These are US requirements for our justice system. It shocks me Great Britain doesn't have these same requirements. The criminal should be in court!
Ive been saying for years they should be dragged into the court, since when are their rights prioritised over that of the victim/s and families!? Sedate and bind them if necessary
If I was an evil criminal who was forced to attend a sentencing against my will, I would just disrupt it befofe the sentence is read out so I could be escorted away and get my win.
I do agree that they must listen to victim statements. However a part of me can’t help but think some of those sickos would find pleasure from listening to those statements. And in that case I’d rather they not hear about the pain and suffering they’ve caused as they have no right to feel joy and happiness.
You cant just put a straight jacket on violent people in court? You cant put a gag on them so they cant shout at people? Seems like an easy solution to the problems he pointed out.
Here's the problem that I see. Despite claims that our CJS is based upon the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty, this is not the case. No PROOF is requried to convict someone - all that's needed is conjecture and circumstantial evidence. I found documents on the gov website. It's acknowledged that circumstantial evidence isn't proof, but it's also acknowledged that if the burden of proof is on the prosecution it's very difficult to convict anyone. So, they knowingly instruct jury's to accept circumstantial evidence as proof - even though it isn't and never can prove anything. Put another way, they KNOW that they risk convicting innocent people. If you KNOW you're convicting innocent people you really do have to respect at least SOME of their human rights. You've robbed them of their freedom - you'd better damn well treat them well in prison because in many cases they will later be proven innocent. And you need to answer for what you've done to them. If they are killed or they commit suicide in prison and are later found to be innocent - someone is responsible, at the very least, to manslaughter.
I'm really sorry I'm sharing with you this but I cannot help it. Can anyone also hear some whispering voice saying "more than that" at around 4:40? Really spooky. Whose voice is this?
A) Since 'when' does a convicted prisoner have ANY say, from conviction until end of Sentence, where he/she goes...and when!??? The prisoner gave up ANY rights when the first MURDER (or any crime), is committed...THEIR CHOICE FORFEITED DURING THAT TIME! B) If Mohammad won't come to the mountain....take the mountain to Mohammad! I.E. put this princess in her cell then march the bereaved to the cell and one by one vent their thoughts. No security risk to prison personnel, families, or court officials! ('I'd' record this event on video tape and thereafter play it over and over, non-stop. The enormous PAIN she caused will be forever with the families who had such happiness ripped from them will bear their PAIN for the rest of 'their' lives. Let her hear the heartache and anger for as long as she lingers on this planet!!!
Since they started knowingly convicting people without proof of guilt. Many suspects, including letby, are convicted based upon conjecture and circumstantial evidence. There is a chance they are innocent. There is a chance that at some future date they will be PROVEN innocent. The state, the police, the judge, the jurors will need to answer for how they have treated an innocent member of the public.
ps on a lighter subject bring back remake of new carry on films.carry on scaffolding as the scaffolding outside this sea front flat have been so far 10 months.! plus they crap.! next carry on nhs,carry on unelected prime minister,carry on uk border force,carry on dentists,carry on doctors,carry on super markets tescos ect.carry on uk ,😊
Yes they should. The poor babies were not given the “choice” to live yet this monster is allowed to “choose” if she wants to listen to her verdict. There is something seriously wrong with our judicial system.
The fact that they still have a choice is just beyond!!
Pure evil…. She should of been dragged out!!
gag them, spit mask, use a restraint chair. simple. Police can drag an autistic teen out her home for a non crime, yet they cant force a CONVICTED BABY MURDERER to hear sentence, this country is a broken mess
Exactly‼️
She should have been made to face those parents and judge, she's a coward and pure evil!
In America, the defendant is required to be in the court room, standing, while the verdict is read. Whether they are found guilty, or innocent, they are required to be in the court room. They are also required to be in the court room when sentencing is read. Sentencing is done at a later date, after they have been found guilty. They must also listen to victim statements, in court. These are US requirements for our justice system. It shocks me Great Britain doesn't have these same requirements. The criminal should be in court!
American barbarism isnt an example to follow 💩🇺🇸
Who cares about America
Those beautiful Babies ❤ 🤲🙏 God Bless Them 🙌
I have heard they are going to change the law so they have to face the family’s ❤
Yes!
Ive been saying for years they should be dragged into the court, since when are their rights prioritised over that of the victim/s and families!? Sedate and bind them if necessary
Yes absolutely if the parents want it
Emphatically YES!
Or what...? They gon arrest her?
Yes, whats the point of if they don't face judgment?
The judge has complete control over his own courtroom
Yes!!!! Absolutely yes !!!!
Short answer: Yes they should
Yes they should! No option whether the criminal/murderer has an option to attend their sentencing.
Yes, for God's sake! Drag her kicking and screaming if you must!
💯
Absolutely
If I was an evil criminal who was forced to attend a sentencing against my will, I would just disrupt it befofe the sentence is read out so I could be escorted away and get my win.
They can be bound and gagged
Why are the two interviewers talking over the Education Secretary? They don’t let her finish her sentences and keep interrupting her.
Yes she should have been in court
‘Tons of pressure on parliamentary time’ well, get back to bloody work then! The country’s in a mess.
Yes
Yes they should
Lucy should not have the choice or the control of that decision after all. She is the killer.
Yes they should ❤
I do agree that they
must listen to victim statements. However a part of me can’t help but think some of those sickos would find pleasure from listening to those statements. And in that case I’d rather they not hear about the pain and suffering they’ve caused as they have no right to feel joy and happiness.
Just like a politician - won’t answer a question and steer off to something else
what was kate mumbling throughout? 😂
Yeah don't think she knew she could be heard
Gotta love Kate 🤣
Of course they should, even if they are handcuffed and forced to attend.
You cant just put a straight jacket on violent people in court? You cant put a gag on them so they cant shout at people? Seems like an easy solution to the problems he pointed out.
They really need to mute Kate’s mic during live interviews, it’s so distracting!
Here's the problem that I see. Despite claims that our CJS is based upon the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty, this is not the case. No PROOF is requried to convict someone - all that's needed is conjecture and circumstantial evidence. I found documents on the gov website. It's acknowledged that circumstantial evidence isn't proof, but it's also acknowledged that if the burden of proof is on the prosecution it's very difficult to convict anyone.
So, they knowingly instruct jury's to accept circumstantial evidence as proof - even though it isn't and never can prove anything.
Put another way, they KNOW that they risk convicting innocent people.
If you KNOW you're convicting innocent people you really do have to respect at least SOME of their human rights. You've robbed them of their freedom - you'd better damn well treat them well in prison because in many cases they will later be proven innocent. And you need to answer for what you've done to them. If they are killed or they commit suicide in prison and are later found to be innocent - someone is responsible, at the very least, to manslaughter.
Of course!!!!!! I am stund that the evil demon can refuse!!!! No man!!!!!
Richards questions are so laughably thick ....
Is that a spooky voice at the 4.34 mark?
Think Kate was whispering to Richard to get him to add something to his question.
Sounds like Kate is saying “what a nerve!”
Yes they should shes not only evil but she's laughing at the families affected by her evil crimes justice system is a joke
I'm really sorry I'm sharing with you this but I cannot help it. Can anyone also hear some whispering voice saying "more than that" at around 4:40? Really spooky. Whose voice is this?
camera man
YEPP uhummm 🖤🇲🇦♥️🇺🇸🤍🌈😷
Why can you always hear the presenters whispering to each other on these uploads?
Yes they should !!
First thing...before i even see the interview..keegan will say something very very stupid
A) Since 'when' does a convicted prisoner have ANY say, from conviction until end of Sentence, where he/she goes...and when!??? The prisoner gave up ANY rights when the first MURDER (or any crime), is committed...THEIR CHOICE FORFEITED DURING THAT TIME!
B) If Mohammad won't come to the mountain....take the mountain to Mohammad! I.E. put this princess in her cell then march the bereaved to the cell and one by one vent their thoughts. No security risk to prison personnel, families, or court officials! ('I'd' record this event on video tape and thereafter play it over and over, non-stop. The enormous PAIN she caused will be forever with the families who had such happiness ripped from them will bear their PAIN for the rest of 'their' lives. Let her hear the heartache and anger for as long as she lingers on this planet!!!
Since they started knowingly convicting people without proof of guilt.
Many suspects, including letby, are convicted based upon conjecture and circumstantial evidence. There is a chance they are innocent. There is a chance that at some future date they will be PROVEN innocent.
The state, the police, the judge, the jurors will need to answer for how they have treated an innocent member of the public.
But they're all innocent
Yes they should. Is that even a f%™¥®¥¢¥^€™®©™€}קkkkk question ⁉️⁉️
ps on a lighter subject bring back remake of new carry on films.carry on scaffolding as the scaffolding outside this sea front flat have been so far 10 months.! plus they crap.! next carry on nhs,carry on unelected prime minister,carry on uk border force,carry on dentists,carry on doctors,carry on super markets tescos ect.carry on uk ,😊
Bring back the death penalty
Yes they should