Paedophile Colin Blanchard refused to leave the cells to be sentenced.......

[joeluke]

.......because he did not want to share the dock with one of his co-accused

Why was he allowed to do this? He was in a court of law and was found guilty of a heinous crime so why wasn't he made to appear for sentencing?

http://news.uk.msn.co...-documentid=155809640

[R1Geezer]

There is no legal requirement for the convicted to be present at sentencing.

[eyethenkyew]

http://www.theanswerb...s/Question976895.html

[sandyRoe]

He'll have to do his time. That's the important thing.

[Newscruiser]

My guess is that he didn't want to look at his victims families and hear the jeering and whoops of joy as he's sentenced or maybe he felt betrayed by his fellow abusers for the statements they gave against him as he thought he was in control of these women.

[joeluke]

Convicted criminals should be forced to be in the dock to face the judge, jury and public gallery for sentencing

Why does our judicial system alllow them to wimp out like this?

Hopefully he'll get what he deserves inside

[R1Geezer]

it's based on the fact that no one has to turn up to be sentenced, including minor crimes, you don't want to have turn up to get sentenced for your next speeding ticket do you? Or do you mean we should change the law for certain crimes? sentences?, people?

[joeluke]

Geezer....I'm talking about those that receive custodial sentences. They are already in the building so they should be in the dock for sentencing

[sandyRoe]

They may not be in the building. Some refuse to leave the remand prison to go to court to be sentenced.

[R1Geezer]

Joe, I know what you mean but once you messa bout with the system you create all sorts of other problems, every time you dscribe a situation someone can add a "yeah but what if" to it, so you end up writing a telephone directory just so we don't have the situation you describe. Go on have a go at writing the law so this guy would have to appear for sentencing....

[Newscruiser]

You're right pinkilady and joeluke but this would be impossible to enforce without disrupting the court as if someone's fighting spitting and screaming just how could you get them into court short of knocking them out which defeats the purpose.

[Newscruiser]

Don't get me wrong I understand your point and would be more than happy for people like this to be wheeled in by a restraint chair

http://www.google.co....,r:30,s:0&tx=28&ty=83

But if sedated we'd just end up wit a dribbling sorry looking shell of a person that may even invoke pity from some of those in the courts. Personally I have clear views on what to do with people like this but probably not a good idea to air them on a public website though I like your idea of a headlock.

[R1Geezer]

yes pink lady but you miss the point, we al; agree he "should" be there, but are you saying we pick and choose based on the case? How do you frame the law as such? that's the difficulty here. OK "all defendants that have specific public revulsion should be made to attend sentencing"

ahh someone cries what is public revulsion? define it, and on we go.

usually the law is like it is for a good reason

[R1Geezer]

How do you know if you are due for a custodial sentence? they don't tell you in advance.

Look pinkyladdy, you carry on with your hysterics and refusal to acknowledge logic ok.

[hc4361]

What if the accused is too ill to attend court? Has an infectious disease? Should the sentence be postponed until he is well?
What makes you think the victims, jury want to see him?
It costs money to transport / guard a prisoner, so I see nothing wrong in him not attending - it doesn't affect the outcome.

[DEN53]

Drag him out by his feet to stand in the dock - he lost all rights when he abused those children.