h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Levi Bellfield has been found guilty of 2 counts of murder and one of attempted murder. He is also now the Prime Suspect in the murder of Milly Dowler.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7264138.stm

"The Old Bailey heard that Bellfield had refused to attend his sentencing because of a "welter of accusations" that he was behind other unsolved crimes."

Should he really be allowed not to attend the sentencing hearing? Should the victims families have not have been allowed the satisfaction of seeing him at the hearing been handed a whole of life sentence?

I dont mean this in a rude way but what is the justice system for?

So that bystanders can prattle on about what they assume that victims deserve or to try to bring some semblance of order to society.

While I know the two arent mutually exclusive and can often work in tandem I have to suggest that the former is way more important than the other.

The personal feelings of the family arent important. What if he had happened to have killed a woman who at the time was being pursued by her family who were intent on making an example of the woman to her younger sisters by committing an "honour killing"?

Would it be right to make the murder appear before the family so they could look on in jealous rage that he beat them to the jump?




What purpose could it possibly serve for *anyone* to see him as the sentence was read out?

What sort of satisfaction do you think the family would get?

one love

Closure. To see the look on the face of the person who has taken a member of your family away at the moment the sentence is read out.

I doubt if that would bring me any closure - that's more about my internal and emotional reaction than any visuals I might get from the perpatrator. Surely the end result is the sentence, whether he was there or not is to a degree irrelevant.

Well done Plod , but hasn't this been a particularly gruesome week ?

I'm not sure whether if he was there or not *is* irrelevant. Yes, he's being investigated for other crimes he may or may not have committed but...I think he just used that as an excuse for not being able to see the relief in the victims families eyes. It just strikes me as odd that he was allowed to do this is all.

blicky, that's why I came here to ask this question.

I do have a couple of queries regarding your response, however...

>The personal feelings of the family arent important.<

Yes they are IMO. In this case the man deprived them of seeing their children growing up and completing their education. Surely they have a right to *see* the man convicted *and* sentenced?

>What if he had happened to have killed a woman who at the time was being pursued by her family who were intent on making an example of the woman to her younger sisters by committing an "honour killing"?<

I'm sorry, I don't understand what point you're making there. If he happened to kill a woman who was going to be killed by someone else? Does that make it any less a crime? (If I've got the wrong end of a shitty stick here, apologies, I probably shouldn't have started this in my state anyway)

And yes, Bea, it has been a particularly gruesome week

I didn't realise that NOT turning up for your sentencing was an option.

Why IS it an option ?

Whether the families are there or not, the sentencing is where the JUDGE tells him TO HIS FACE what a naughty boy he's been.

Even if they had to strap him to a cart and wheel him in he should have been there to face the judge.

The guy seems to have lived his life in a cowardly way, his choice of career, his modus operandi, I'm not surprised he didn't want to go to court.

Well, he will have plenty of time to get used to his new 'position' in life.

Sadly, even if he is convicted of further murders, noone is going to make things any worse for him.

alec.

I also second whether they get much closure. Often what you tend to read in the news is how upset the families are when the person being sentenced laughs or abuses them...

It's not like the news is going to be much of a shock to him, is it?

sprout

Magwitch, when you wrote "should he really be alowed" you were clearly implying that you already thought it was wrong.

You werent so much asking the question ask asking for other people to chilme in with similar thoughts to back up your sneaking uncertainty.

You were uncertain and wrong.

The reason I asked about the family of someone who had been killed but who themselves wanted that person killed illustrates my point that despite the love or lack of it for the departed seeing the killer convicted makes no difference overall.

More importantly justice is not a pesonal thing we have deliberately and for good reason tried to depersonalise it.

Otherwise we might have longer and shorter sentences for the same crimes dpending on how it impacts the victim. A theif is a theif whether they steal310 or a million pounds. If you were mugged and had a cheap watch stole from you wouldnt you want the same punishment for them as someone who stole a tiarra from a Duchess?

Or would you preferit if the tiarra theif got a longer sentence because the Duchess needed more "closure".




While we are at it what in the name of Bob is closure?

one love

I think he should have been there, but not for the same reasons as you, Magwitch; his not bothering to turn up (presumably because he knew his sentence already) I see as comtempt of court. The families' reactions to him and his punishment are secondary.

My .

Shame he won't have the opportunity to try not turning up for his hanging.

Blicky, yes I had really thought its should not be allowed, although not solely for the reasons in my original post.

I originally was thinking about the legal implications and, as I was slightly pished it came out all emotional and everyfink.

I still think that the families of the victims would have gained more satistfaction had he been there, however.