National News Disorder & Protests

I have to say my gut reaction is he should have what the poor girls faced. But I also think he's clearly 'not normal' and if execution is the answer where does it end? Will people start demanding we execute all people with extreme mental conditions who commit murder. And if that's not a deterrent will they demand preemptive strikes? It soon starts running away with itself so for that reason I think he should be locked up for good.

Edit: I don't remember this clamour for the death penalty for Lucy Letby unless I missed it which I may have

Letby case has a level of doubt due to possible flaws in the trial evidence and medical counterarguments around neonatology.

Wouldn`t go "down the road" under my system.
 
Letby case has a level of doubt due to possible flaws in the trial evidence and medical counterarguments around neonatology.

Wouldn`t go "down the road" under my system.

Hang on - she's been convicted by a jury of her peers beyond reasonable doubt. She is likely to appeal on the basis of flawed evidence - if she loses that, why does she get a pass? She murdered seven infants.

This is why your system is barking mad. You can't convict someone beyond reasonable doubt, and then have a lower tier of sentencing because there's reasonable doubt! It is deeply logically flawed!
 
My personal view is that calling for the premeditated killing of another person isn’t good for you or for society.

Calling for killing people due to cold, pragmatic, economic reasons is possibly even more dehumanising than killing for angry retribution.
 
Hang on - she's been convicted by a jury of her peers beyond reasonable doubt. She is likely to appeal on the basis of flawed evidence - if she loses that, why does she get a pass? She murdered seven infants.

This is why your system is barking mad. You can't convict someone beyond reasonable doubt, and then have a lower tier of sentencing because there's reasonable doubt! It is deeply logically flawed!

There is the thing........... doubt.

In the case of the Southport killer there is none. Zero. Zilch. Down the road he goes.

Letby has a small modicum of doubt, therefore a WLT is appropriate and subject to future appeals etc.
 
There is the thing........... doubt.

In the case of the Southport killer there is none. Zero. Zilch. Down the road he goes.

Letby has a small modicum of doubt, therefore a WLT is appropriate and subject to future appeals etc.

Surely if there's any doubt at all, she shouldn't be convicted, let alone locked up for the rest of her life?
 
Letby has a small modicum of doubt, therefore a WLT is appropriate and subject to future appeals etc.

You may have a small modicum of doubt. If the jurors had a (reasonable) modicum of doubt, however small, then they should have voted not guilty. That is one of the very central, fundamental pillars of the UK justice system.
 
You may have a small modicum of doubt. If the jurors had a (reasonable) modicum of doubt, however small, then they should have voted not guilty. That is one of the very central, fundamental pillars of the UK justice system.
There’s lots of stuff coming out around Lucy Letby’s conviction which makes it apear incredibly unsafe. The jury can only act on what they’re told, they’re not medical experts but now multiple top experts in their fields are coming forward and saying that the prosecution’s medical evidence wasn’t correct.

It’s not really a reasonable comparison between her case and this one because with Letby the prosecution never actually even had any evidence that those babies were actually murdered, or any evidence whatsoever that she was involved apart from the fact that she was often (not even always!) on when it happened, whereas this obviously clearly was murder, and was him, without a shadow of a doubt.

If you were going to have a two tier system of life imprisonment / executed if there’s absolutely zero doubt (not saying I want that or agree with it, but if you were) then those two cases would easily and clearly sit either side of that line.
 
There’s lots of stuff coming out around Lucy Letby’s conviction which makes it apear incredibly unsafe. The jury can only act on what they’re told, they’re not medical experts but now multiple top experts in their fields are coming forward and saying that the prosecution’s medical evidence wasn’t correct.

It’s not really a reasonable comparison between her case and this one because with Letby the prosecution never actually even had any evidence that those babies were actually murdered, or any evidence whatsoever that she was involved apart from the fact that she was often (not even always!) on when it happened, whereas this obviously clearly was murder, and was him, without a shadow of a doubt.

If you were going to have a two tier system of life imprisonment / executed if there’s absolutely zero doubt (not saying I want that or agree with it, but if you were) then those two cases would easily and clearly sit either side of that line.

There's never zero doubt. In this case we know that this individual had mental health issues and was under the supervision of a mental health team before withdrawing from treatment. In order to create the tiniest of doubt you would only need one psychologist/psychiatrist to conclude that he was so unwell he was unable to control himself and diminished responsibility would be used to create doubt.

Meanwhile, the description that you have for the Letby case is beyond reasonable doubt and makes her convictions unsafe. A two tier system would actually lead to fewer murder convictions and no executions.

Despite the (understandable) emotions that follow events like this, our justice system is actually pretty good (none are perfect), and I don't think changes are necessary.
 
Last edited:
Surely if there's any doubt at all, she shouldn't be convicted, let alone locked up for the rest of her life?

I`m sure you know it is "beyond reasonable doubt" for a conviction.

The prosecution has to convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to decide a guilty verdict.

Having sat in a jury room several times in every case there has been a "what if?" discussion but the decision was made on the weight of evidence provided.

In the Letby case there is a suggestion that some of that evidence might be flawed which is enough doubt for her to be serving a WLT.

Would be the same when I restore the DP. :)

Save the ultimate punishment for the most extreme cases where there is zero doubt.
 
There's never zero doubt. In this case we know that this individual had mental health issues and was under the supervision of a mental health team before withdrawing from treatment. In order to create the tiniest of doubt you would only need one psychologist/psychiatrist to conclude that he was so unwell he was unable to control himself and diminished responsibility would be used to create doubt.

Meanwhile, the description that you have for the Letby case is beyond reasonable doubt and makes her convictions unsafe. A two tier system would actually lead to fewer murder convictions and no executions.

Despite the (understandable) emotions that follow events like this, our justice system is actually pretty good (none are perfect), and I don't think changes are necessary.

Bit tricky to plead "lack of control" when he`s buying the kit to make Ricin as well as the knives to carry out the attack and has a prolonged history of violence.

Just hope someone carves him up inside and the staff don`t rush. :)
 
Bit tricky to plead "lack of control" when he`s buying the kit to make Ricin as well as the knives to carry out the attack and has a prolonged history of violence.

Just hope someone carves him up inside and the staff don`t rush. :)

Also ordered and waited for a taxi to take him to the scene five miles away.
 
Just seen Rachel Reeve describe the murderer as an evil man, that will be her getting a telling off from the forum experts on using the language of a five year old to describe him.
 
Do you think he would have pled guilty if at the end of the trial there was a chance of the death penalty? If he had would the sentence not have been commuted to life anyway? If he had no chance of getting off would he have gone through trial for his own sick pleasure putting the families through that trauma? I think the lawyers in this case did the best thing for the victims families.

Just because she is a blond attractive young woman letby has been convicted of murdering babies. There is no doubt in law that she did it, and to that end in law she is the same cold hearted child killer.

Suggesting Letby is different is an insult to those murdered babies families, and frankly stinks of racism.

We have repeatedly posed the question to parliament about reintroducing the death penalty and they have repeatedly said no.

Everyone to their opinion but personally giving the state the power to kill people for crimes is a very dangerous step.
 
Suggesting Letby is different is an insult to those murdered babies families, and frankly stinks of racism.
I strongly disagree, I think you’re absolutely wrong and way off the mark, and I categorically refute that it has anything whatsoever to do with race.

I suggest you read this, as just one example:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgwx9xprwqo.amp

“Had someone actually seen her harming a baby at the neonatal unit in the Countess of Chester Hospital, the case might have been more straightforward, but no-one did. There was no incriminating CCTV or DNA evidence either. The evidence against her was circumstantial.”

Do you either:

A) Think that paragraph from a fairly balanced BBC article is factually incorrect

Or

B) Think that it doesn’t make the case at least somewhat different from someone who was seen by multiple witnesses, as well as CCTV, to carry out those attacks?

Or just answer this: 280 medical professionals have signed a letter delivered to the prime minister as questioning the evidence that’s been used in court against Letby. Can you show me how many professionals or experts have done similar to challenge the Axel Rudakubana evidence? I’ll wait.

I stand by my claim that the two cases, while both ending in a guilty verdict, are categorically very different (forgetting the fact that he admitted his guilt while she protests her innocence to this day) and I will strongly challenge anyone who wants to say that I’m a racist, I couldn’t care less what race either of the suspects are.

Lucy Letby may well be guilty, but it’s undeniably not the same surety of guilt as Axel Rudakubana.
 
Back
Top Bottom