Until a few years ago I had never heard of a single case of a murderer declining to go into the dock to hear their sentence. I doubt whether any of them even realised that they had the choice.  Yet in recent years, the word seems to have spread and something of a fashion has

I’m listening to LBC callers say that forcing the convict to attend their sentencing hearing ‘smacks of medievalism’. All kinds of hell-fire would be unleashed if this law was overturned.

Yet in the US and other countries, convicts are forced to attend their sentencing hearings and the sky didn’t fall. What is so fucking special about the UK?

  • @[email protected]English
    8•1 year ago

    I don’t think they’re given a choice exactly. But if they refuse to attend, current policy is not to force them.

    I am not big on the heavy hand of the state but I do think that where prison is inevitable and lives have been taken or irreparably damaged, it should be compulsory. It’s not like they’re volunteering to go to prison either.

    The reason I think it should be required is because it is (a partial form of) restorative justice and because it’s an element of any kind of rehabilitation (to the extent that rehabilitation is possible after crimes of this nature).

    Anyways, moot point. The government has an easy win here given the publicity around this case and another high profile one in Liverpool recently. Unless there is a good reason I can’t think of, policy will likely change for PR points.