Also in the News - Part 2

[Zear0]

Given the b**ch took gratification in seeing the parents suffering after she'd killed their babies, not sure this case is a prime example of compelling offenders to see the victim's impact statements.  Guess I'd word any legislation to compel the offender to attend should the victim/family wish so. 

[leicsmac]

42 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

It’s a real advantage and you know it.  We all know it.  The sport’s bodies know it and they’re taking action.

Across all sports, even chess?

 

With respect, no one knows anything of the sort.

[leicsmac]

On the topic of Letby being compelled to show up for sentencing, while I'd agree with the idea in principle I think the practice might be a bit trickier - how do you actually, practically, get a person who really doesn't want to be there and already will go down for a maximum punishment to appear? Drag them in kicking and screaming and listen to them caterwauling while sentence is passed? Drug them?

 

There's only so much compulsion and coercion you can use on someone who likely feels they have nothing left to be threatened with.

Edited 21 August 2023 by leicsmac

[Dunge]

I think in a case like this there’s little point in getting her to face the sentencing anyway.

She isn’t going to be rehabilitated. She needs to be sent away, forgotten, erased from existence. That’s not to say the children who died should be forgotten of course, nor the crime should there be anything useful that can be learned from it. But she should.

[ClaphamFox]

42 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

On the topic of Letby being compelled to show up for sentencing, while I'd agree with the idea in principle I think the practice might be a bit trickier - how do you actually, practically, get a person who really doesn't want to be there and already will go down for a maximum punishment to appear? Drag them in kicking and screaming and listen to them caterwauling while sentence is passed? Drug them?

 

There's only so much compulsion and coercion you can use on someone who likely feels they have nothing left to be threatened with.

On BBC news this morning there was a minister promising that the government would find a way to ensure that in the future all defendants will be made to attend their sentencing. The interviewer asked how this could be achieved without physically dragging them kicking and screaming into the dock. The minister responded (I paraphrase), "I'm not an expert and I don't have the answer, but this will be looked into."

It's basically unenforceable, but the government is responding to the public mood by promising to deliver something it knows it can't really deliver. 

[reporterpenguin]

Just now, ClaphamFox said:

It's basically unenforceable, but the government is responding to the public mood by promising to deliver something it knows it can't really deliver. 

How odd, normally their policies are really thought through 

[Grebfromgrebland]

I'm pretty sure you can take someone kicking and screaming anywhere once they're guilty.

 

How else would you take them to prison? 

[The Doctor]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Potential?  Really?  There is plenty of evidence, you just have to look at the results.  Times for events which are a race, weights for events which involve lifting for a start.  You are being willfully blind for idealogical reasons if you choose not to see it.  As the comment that numbers are tiny, yes they may be, but that doesn't make it fair for those who are impacted.  Why are you so keen to let the rights of males identifying as females over actual females?  I just don't understand.

 

As for Chess, as noted there is clearly an opportunity to encourage female players vs an established male order, so why shouldn't they choose to have a womens category.  To flip your point around, why would trans women have an issue competing against the men? Seems strange.

Yes potential. Whether trans women maintain an athletic advantage (since transfeminine bodies on HRT are not equivalent to male bodies) is complicated. Take Lia Thomas as an a high profile example, her record competing in the mens 500 free style prior to HRT was 4:18.72, 105.0% of the record time (4:06.32), and podiumed. She plummeted to 400 rankings competing in men's swimming while on HRT then swimming in women's, podiumed with a 500 freestyle time of 4:33.24, 103.5% of the women's record finish (4:24.06). Now, is that slightly better relative finish because she still maintains some biological advantage or is it because she's a couple of years older and more experienced.

 

The proportion of trans athletes is much smaller than the proportion of trans people in society as a whole, is that because the reduction in performance associated with HRT makes them uncompetitive or because of structural obstacles meaning less trans people want to pursue sports.

 

studies into reductions in athletic performance, or more specifically attributes believed to correlate to athletic performance, show slight differences that don't then play out in practice, is it because these attributes don't correlate as neatly as we think, or is it a limitation of study length meaning the full reduction in performance isn't achieved during the study period?

 

this is a far more complicated topic than you make out.

[ClaphamFox]

4 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

I'm pretty sure you can take someone kicking and screaming anywhere once they're guilty.

 

How else would you take them to prison? 

But would it really be worth doing that for a sentencing when the families of the victims are in attendance? Will it really be beneficial to have a defendant shouting over impact statements, making gestures to the victim's families, putting their hands over their ears, screaming while the judge delivers the verdict, etc? The reading of impact statements and the judge's sentencing should surely be a sombre, dignified occasion - what's the point in dragging somebody into the dock only to have to remove them again because they're disrupting proceedings? It just seems counterproductive.

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

But would it really be worth doing that for a sentencing when the families of the victims are in attendance? Will it really be beneficial to have a defendant shouting over impact statements, making gestures to the victim's families, putting their hands over their ears, screaming while the judge delivers the verdict, etc? The reading of impact statements and the judge's sentencing should surely be a sombre, dignified occasion - what's the point in dragging somebody into the dock only to have to remove them again because they're disrupting proceedings? It just seems counterproductive.

 

Yeah, it's something that sounds good on paper but can't be enforced for these exact reasons.

[dsr-burnley]

22 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Yes potential. Whether trans women maintain an athletic advantage (since transfeminine bodies on HRT are not equivalent to male bodies) is complicated. Take Lia Thomas as an a high profile example, her record competing in the mens 500 free style prior to HRT was 4:18.72, 105.0% of the record time (4:06.32), and podiumed. She plummeted to 400 rankings competing in men's swimming while on HRT then swimming in women's, podiumed with a 500 freestyle time of 4:33.24, 103.5% of the women's record finish (4:24.06). Now, is that slightly better relative finish because she still maintains some biological advantage or is it because she's a couple of years older and more experienced.

 

The proportion of trans athletes is much smaller than the proportion of trans people in society as a whole, is that because the reduction in performance associated with HRT makes them uncompetitive or because of structural obstacles meaning less trans people want to pursue sports.

 

studies into reductions in athletic performance, or more specifically attributes believed to correlate to athletic performance, show slight differences that don't then play out in practice, is it because these attributes don't correlate as neatly as we think, or is it a limitation of study length meaning the full reduction in performance isn't achieved during the study period?

 

this is a far more complicated topic than you make out.

Perhaps if she had taken a different balance of drugs, she could have got the record?

 

I dare say it is complicated.  I doubt that working out the exact balance of drugs that reduces a trans woman's strength to what it would have been had she been born a woman, is going to be very tricky.  And the exact degree of Procrustean amputation that makes her height and arm length equivalent to what it would have been, will be trickier still!

[ozleicester]

Cancer victim Henrietta Lacks’ family reached an out of court settlement with medical company Thermo Fisher Scientific

 

 

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/united-states-medical-racism-and-corporate-exploitation?fbclid=IwAR1RegJ057wi9s_6T971A21VTYTyoNoJ-I8dy7gDjXsAPNf6dNjXDdi7SFo

[David Hankey]

I always understood after being found guilty you lost your privileges. These miscreants should be forced into the dock and listen to the sentence.

 

HANG THE BASTARD!!. 

 

I know that won't happen so we taxpayers will now fork out £1K a week to keep her incarcerated. What a ruddy joke!!

[kingkisnorbo]

One of those things I hope that I never have to read about again. Comfortably the most upsetting thing I’ve ever seen in the news. 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

I always understood after being found guilty you lost your privileges. These miscreants should be forced into the dock and listen to the sentence.

 

HANG THE BASTARD!!. 

 

I know that won't happen so we taxpayers will now fork out £1K a week to keep her incarcerated. What a ruddy joke!!

How, exactly?

[Zear0]

*edit* In hindsight not the time

Edited 21 August 2023 by Zear0

[David Hankey]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

How, exactly?

How did those who committed crimes in the past get taken to Court to hear their sentence?

 

I don't see any defence for not attending.

 

 

[bovril]

23 minutes ago, kingkisnorbo said:

One of those things I hope that I never have to read about again. Comfortably the most upsetting thing I’ve ever seen in the news. 

I've been instantly scrolling down whenever I open a news site these days. Do not want to read about it or see a photo. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

How did those who committed crimes in the past get taken to Court to hear their sentence?

 

I don't see any defence for not attending.

 

 

Good question. Were they ever legally compelled to do so outside of the days of yore where it was OK for prison agents of the state to beat a defendant to a bloody pulp?

 

I haven't found anything that says that they were and current law is pretty clear on the matter.

 

I'll say again: I'm all for the idea in principle, I'm just not sure how it would work in practice for reasons that have been stated above.

[LCFCJohn]

Couldn’t have been anything but a whole life order. Galling that as tax payers, there is the cost of her upkeep. 
 

She will surely be a massive target in there. Child offenders and killers are anyway but in a womens prison, there will surely be some pretty awful people there who are still mums themselves and will be out for her…..

 

It still isn’t justice enough for the families 

 

 

[FoxesDeb]

47 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

I always understood after being found guilty you lost your privileges. These miscreants should be forced into the dock and listen to the sentence.

 

HANG THE BASTARD!!. 

 

I know that won't happen so we taxpayers will now fork out £1K a week to keep her incarcerated. What a ruddy joke!!

I don't see what benefit there is to anyone for somebody to be forced to hear their sentence at the exact time it is announced, it's not like they won't find out, and I would imagine it was exactly as expected anyway.

 

With regards to the death penalty, it is actually much more expensive than imprisoning someone for life, or at least it is in the States.

[Fox92]

1 minute ago, FoxesDeb said:

I don't see what benefit there is to anyone for somebody to be forced to hear their sentence at the exact time it is announced, it's not like they won't find out, and I would imagine it was exactly as expected anyway.

 

With regards to the death penalty, it is actually much more expensive than imprisoning someone for life, or at least it is in the States.

It's not about hearing the sentance, it's about actually doing the decent thing (of course, she is not decent) and showing up. It's the least that should happen.

[FoxesDeb]

2 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

It's not about hearing the sentance, it's about actually doing the decent thing (of course, she is not decent) and showing up. It's the least that should happen.

I still don't see any benefit to her actually being in the same room at the time though, and as others have mentioned, forcing her to be there and risking some kind of outburst would surely only bring more distress to the people affected.

 

Tbh though until this case I didn't realise people had the option to attend or not, so it's not something I've given a great deal of thought to.

[StanSP]

Gets even more bizarre. 

 

 

 

[David Hankey]

51 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

It's not about hearing the sentance, it's about actually doing the decent thing (of course, she is not decent) and showing up. It's the least that should happen.

The problem is that we are not dealing with "decent" people. If they were they wouldn't have committed the crime.

 

No doubt all this is to do with the do-gooders and the European Court of Human Rights bollocks.