There’s a lot of hate here that I can empathise with and I’m trying to not take calls for her to commit suicide or be murdered/ tortured in prison literally. It’s difficult to express hate verbally without reference to physical violence that underscores it. There’s sentiment here that life in prison isn’t enough and I tend to agree, but not in a way I’ve seen talked about here or anywhere else.
Letby should be imprisoned for life, no question. But that shouldn’t stop us asking more questions about what happened here. Do we treat Letby’s murders as isolated, unique cases and expect them to never be repeated? Lock her away and continue business as usual? It’s possible that things aren’t so simple and we need to look into how somebody like Letby got away with so much for so long and maybe also why she began doing something quite so horrific.
Mental illness is an unfortunate reality to come to grips with because we are steadily recognising that it is caused by relationships an affected person has with their environment. That means there is a share of responsibility in all of us and the systems/ institutions we have built to make sure this does not happen again and that we identify it before it’s too late.
It’s entirely likely that Letby will turn to self harm, or other extreme outcomes of poor mental health. We can’t ask anyone to sympathise with her after what she has done, but we can hope to treat mental illness better in the future and offer help to those who need it, before it’s too late. And I don’t mean too late in the sense of killing people, because that’s not what all mentally ill people do.
I appreciate the leveled comment. It’s difficult to separate one’s more reactive side of anger with the reasonable side. There’s a reason the family of victims of crimes can’t be jurors. I, too, would not be able to hold it together if I was in the position of those impacted by this person. Still, like you said it’s vital we look at it from a position of a civilized society. The lens of Justice should not be focused on vengeance or punishment — both proven ineffective in terms of recidivism. Rather, the true pillars of justice involve: Separation from society, and rehabilitation (when possible). Arguably deterrence, but that is questionable.
Someone like this should not just be sentenced to life imprisonment (as a precaution to civilized society), but also subject to scientific study from both life and after death in autopsy. Every. Single. Part of her makeup should be dissected from checking for tumors (Tower shooter), analyzing her brain chemistry, relentlessly studying her past and psychoanalyzing her.
The point is to be more nuanced and actually get to the bottom of why she did what she did. By default, people don’t have the capacity to just straight up murder helpless children. If someone does that, something is seriously wrong. What happened in this case? Is it mental illness? Is that nurse this incompetent (unlikely)? Why was this left unchecked for so long since doctors have seemingly voiced some concerns in the past?
Even if turns out to be mental illness, that doesn’t mean that she should go back to business with a warning, she is still a threat to other people.
Capacity as in mental capacity. People don’t just wanna murder people. Even if you think you’re in the right, killing people kinda makes people feel bad.
These bizarre attacks are silly, no one said they want to sleep with her - people are just pointing out that emotional responses are easy and feel good but they don’t help - you’re full of hate and I understand that but it’s not going to stop the same thing happening again, we’re saying that stopping the same thing happening again is more important.
There should definitely be better trigger points added to healthcare and warnings to signify either errors of judgement or malice. My opinion of the management involved in this case is also very low. The parents also deserve justice with the failings in that area.
The mental health side of things should be taught in schools to let people know when things are abnormal. No one tells you that it is normal to have some of the syndromes that affect all of us in our daily lives. Without realising there is an issue, people can easily blow things up and create spirals that are hard to get out of. Mental health should not just be down to professionals, just like physical health having some awareness of good/bad can go a long way.
And practically all the courts in countries that used to be part of the Empire/Commonwealth wear pretty much identical outfits. The whole justice system was founded in the UK.
Because she’s white, young and hot, which automatically earns her sympathy points from everyone else. Look at all the people calling her mentally ill when if she was a dude, they’d be calling for his blood too.
I hate this mentality, how dare they post a picture of her looking normal when she should be drooling blood and screaming about how she loves to kill babies in every picture
She did look normal, that’s a huge part of what let her get away with it for so long - everyone has this idea that only ugly people with mean faces do crime but that’s not how reality works - people aren’t all typecast and coded for their role, we need to get used to the reality that a normal and nice seeming person could be awfull on the inside.
I think their point is that this should be the case, a normal photo, but it only seems to be the case for certain demographics. A black person wouldn’t have gotten a nice, normal photo.
Answer: it’s all to do with innocent until proven guilty laws.
Basically, in the UK, you can’t push a view in the media that someone committed the crime until they are found guilty. You can say blah happened and it is suspected that blah happened but if you say they did it before they are ruled guilty you open yourself up to legal issues.
This continues over to use of photos etc where if you use photos that make them look “bad” then that entity may be accused of pushing the view before the suspect is found guilty.
But, once found guilty, you can do it. If you go look at the BBC News site today you’ll find that they don’t really use this image and now use mugshots and other images where she doesn’t look happy/smiling.
As for why this specific picture is still sometimes used - it’s really just to do with what users will recognise, because this case has been going on for years now and that’s the picture they always showed. Sky News (the site in the link) does also have other non-happy pictures of her now.
Bitch is going to commit suicide in jail and that’s way too good for her. She should live with it every day and be beaten daily. Even that’s too good for her. Makes my blood boil
I’m trying to understand the downvotes you have. Like yeah, what you’re saying is extreme. But murdering goddamn infants is pretty fucking extreme. If there was ever a time to wish someone pain, it would be now.
Youre gonna get downvoted for not validating the 2 minutes’ hate. There are an awful lot of people who are very excited to find someone they can get away with doing violence against.
Sadism would be torturing an innocent. She’s far from that. And she won’t spend her life in prison so she won’t even get the punishment inflicted by the law. They’ll kill her before long. Why all this grace reserved to an angel of death?
I disagree. I’m not talking about some group of people some other group doesn’t like, but somebody who’s universally despised, somebody who does things so against our nature it’s nuts. Some people deserve decency, some others do not.
I disagree, it is dangerous to dehumanise people no matter how disgusting we find them. People are still people man, we may never understand how they think or why they do the things that they do.
History has shown time and again where dehumanisation leads to.
This moral purism of theirs is hypocritical. It can only exist if there are good people who are “impure”. The threat of violence for instance is what keeps wanton violence at bay. Someone can be as pacifistic as they like, but at the end of the day, you aren’t going to solve all violence in the world with clever words.
I’m referring to the general theory of government where the state has a monopoly on violence. It should be fairly obvious that the threat of violence is used to keep people in line – it’s why police, security guards, and bouncers exist. Why do you think guards and soldiers are some of the world’s oldest professions?
Schadenfreude would be the term for the actual pleasure derived. And I’m not going to pretend that it’s morally right or ethical to enjoy. But it is human to desire vengeance and revenge. Wishing harm to someone who murdered newborns is one of the least morally wrong instances of vengeance.
Plus, I hold that moral absolutism is an even greater evil. This is why the paradox of tolerance exists, and why the same goes for pacifism. It’s impossible to have a pacifistic society unless you are willing to use violence to dissuade violence. You would probably say that means there’s no difference between the two individuals, and I would have to vehemently disagree. Intent and context are incredibly important.
That’s not how this works yo. The monster is in prison, she will stay in prison till she’s dead. No more need for extrajudicial punishments. No need to torture or to murder her.
There is nothing gained from hurting her further except a bunch of unwashed brainlets get hateboners; further it opens a whole can of worms of extrajudicial, punitive violence.
That’s like saying we should be tolerant of republican’s fascism. Some things shouldn’t be allowed even if you sorta need to act like them towards them to get it to stop.
Some people aren’t mental and don’t wish to inflict pointless harm on others.
Those are the ones upvoting him.
If its wrong to harm people, its wrong to harm those who harm people too.
Alright, let me explain it to you as if you were a five year old:
No one thinks murdering babies is wrong because harming anyone is wrong.
They think it’s wrong because they’re babies.
It’s a specific case.
If harming others was always wrong, it would be impossible for her to be arrested and imprisoned.
Actually, the nurse wasn’t even using violence to kill the babies so trying to use nonviolence to shame others for wanting that vile bitch of a murderer beaten in prison doesn’t track either.
The fact that you think that’s the reason why I and many others (I am very clearly not alone in my thinking) believe what we do tells us all we need to know about you. You never even asked me the reason why I believe the way I do, you just constructed a stereotype of me and people like me you built in your head based off dumb things others told you and it’s completely warping your judgement. Learn some empathy.
This isn’t to say that I’m arguing for torture as retribution, but this almost comes across as you arguing against actions having consequences, which is a wholly different argument, and I understand you probably don’t actually support that, but I’m just going off what’s written. I’m actually kind of with you in terms of the torture thing, like I’d probably just put her in solitary and leave it at that. But yeah, as with tolerance, a peaceful society has to have ways to deal with violence, lest it become a violent society.
This has nothing to do with the paradox of tolerance. Not even slightly for one she’s been arrested, charged and given 14 life sentences and is going to spend her entire life in prison. So she has faces consequences for her actions.
and for two she is not a threat to tolerant society, shes a serial killer.
I dont think you actually know that the paradox of tolerance means.
There usually isn’t much that makes me literally speechless or at a loss for words, but after I read more specific details further down in this thread it actually happened to me. I also can’t remember the last time my eyes actually widened in horror at reading something.
Absolutely, people can down vote to oblivion but I stand by what I said. Days old babies, I cannot comprehend this. It’s that reason I may sound a smidge extreme, for a very laid back easy going person this has awoken a great anger in me.
And it should, but that anger should be directed not to further hurt this sick animal, but towards all the checks and balances that should have caught this earlier - administration that refused to look into it after her colleagues raised concerns, the implicit trust we put into people in these careers, and the lack of screening that lets people like this into these jobs in the first place.
Reddit would suspend your account for this comment even though it is perfectly reasonable. But I also think why waste time and money on this trash and just throw her into a furnace or something.
The whole thing is unconscionable imho. Obviously firstly, for her to prey on, and hurt/ murder newborn babies? I can’t wrap my mind around that. At all.
From the admins at the hospital ignoring the worried reports from the physicians who worked on the unit WITH her. The administration went so far as to demand those same physicians go to mediation with her and write out apology letters. Admins accepted her complaints of harassment over the doctor’s concerns that there was a pattern to the infants collapsing. If the DR’s refused to do that they were threatened to lose their jobs!
Then you have the fact that she was in a caregiver profession. Generally the public trusts caregivers/doctors. No one wants to believe that if you have a family member in the hospital, they are at risk of being MURDERED! That’s supposed to be a safe space from the world!
No one will be able to repair the public’s perception of the medical profession if medical professionals kill their patients.
This whole incident is terrifying. Reading the article, it linked to other articles, which I of course followed… that was a eye opening experience. I had no idea that there were multiple occasions that this had happened. Counting babies, adults, and the elderly. I can’t make sense of this.
Also.just like bad cops, bad nurses can jump around the country as well. This also makes it difficult to stop these people from committing more crime. It’s almost the same scenario as well, in regards to people being aware of what’s going on . I wanted to add veterans to your list as well. Search Kirsten Gilbert…
Honestly the administration should be doing just as much time. Somewhere in their cushy offices, they ran the numbers and decided that the life of multiple infants was worth less than their brand. I wish them all a very long stay in gen pop.
I remember watching a (at least somewhat) factual documentary about another serial killer who murdered elderly people in care. Apparently, even when there are multiple suspicions, even from previous employers, some hospitals refuse to take action. In the documentary it was speculated that this is because it’s apparently hard to get enough personnel. So if someone does an otherwise good job on the surface they won’t look closer. Hospitals are a business, and management only cares whether or not it’s profitable.
That’s scary. I read some articles last night following links after this article. From nurses who like the thrill of “saving lives” (causing patients to code so they can be the “hero”). To doctors killing to get written into their patients’ wills. To one male nurse who killed his elderly patients, by all accounts simply because he hated geriatric women?
The crimes were years ago, but the system needs to be fixed. If a medical professional is suspected of causing harm to their patients, then they should be investigated while being suspended (or removed from direct patient care during the investigation).
If ultimately the accusations are unfounded, then great. However for those times the investigation shows wrong doing. That’s when shit needs to get real. Police need to be called in. Medical/nursing board of licensing should be involved. Otherwise, a hospital should be liable for lawsuits for wrongdoing in my opinion.
It won’t bring the babies back. It won’t stop her killing more babies any better than prison will. It won’t discourage other people from killing babies.
All it does is turn “murder is wrong” into “murder is wrong (unless I think you deserve it)”… and guess which of those most murderers believe?
She is not being rehabilitated and will never contribute to society in any way again. She is just costing people money for no reason. I am normally against the death penalty, but there are some cases, like this one, that make me think twice.
I would argue that contributing to society can at minimum mean to be a person of good standing who participates without causing trouble. You could be as useless as a retiree since your 20s and still have contributed to society.
You are right. Contributing is not a requirement. I never said that it was, but I could have worded it better. It’s more the fact that she did completely unforgivable things and will obviously never be rehabbed. I’m torn on the idea, but people like her just seem like a waste of air.
Also, how does me implying that most people contribute to society make people a means to my ends? That part of your comment makes no sense. I don’t give a fuck what people do as long as they don’t mess with other people.
I don’t know if she can be rehabilitated, but one of my catch phrases is nobody is beyond redemption. I don’t know if it’s true, but I think it is an important belief. Practically, I’d rather keep a monster alive if it saves a few damaged people with some hope of reforming. I also think that cultivating a mindset of compassion does good things for me as far as how I view and treat other people.
I recognize there’s more nuance to your views, but statements like that are made all the same by people who don’t have very complicated views of things. I debated four peeps at once at work today that were in support of the death penalty, so I might be a bit biased due to that.
The death penalty is generally MORE expensive than prison for life, and if you don’t want it that way your giving the government monetary incentive to give out more death penalties. Which is obviously a HORRIBLE IDEA
Idk if they even have the death penalty in the UK but in the US it’s significantly more expensive to put someone to death than it is to imprison them for life. Also about a third of death penalty cases end up overturned on appeal. Which is a pleasant way of saying we get it wrong a lot. I feel like that’s important to remember, because you’re not just deciding what to do in this specific case. You’re designing rules, not exceptions.
I totally agree for the US. I guess since I don’t live there I trust the UK judicial system to be more sorted, but that is probably naive.
Even though I am against it where I live, there are still those cases where there is undeniable proof and the crimes are heinous enough to invoke the primal side of the brain. The logical side of my brain knows that it is a bad idea to give power to the state to kill people.
I just can’t imagine how the family would feel in these kind of situations, and sometimes I think the justice given to them can be underwhelming. It’s complicated and I find it hard to make a concrete decision to say that the death penalty is absolutely never warranted.
US it’s significantly more expensive to put someone to death than it is to imprison them for life
because of the appeals process. maybe if you guys had an actual functioning justice system over there that didnt convict and sentence people to death because of their skin colour things would be different, but as it stands, THAT is why its more expensive.
No-one hear is arguing over the actual guilt of this lady. A death sentence isnt going to be accidently put on the wrong person. Will she appeal? probably. She can do the same for life in prison too. Its gonna cost a lot no matter what.
In the end she is a worthless, valueless monster the world would be better for if she wasnt consuming oxygen and resources, although pretty sure the death penalty isnt a thing in the UK anyway so the point is moot
maybe if you guys had an actual functioning justice system over there that didnt convict and sentence people to death because of their skin colour things would be different,
Eg, he’s right about it being racist AF over here. Shit, we onced sentenced 3 kids to death because a child had been murdered and those 3 kids lived near the place where it happened, listened to dark music and made everyone feel uncomfortable. Google “west Memphis 3”, we didn’t actually end up murdering any of them but it wasn’t for lack of trying.
A large number of people would disagree with you and they would be right to do so. Your opinion does not mean fact.
Nothing anyone does will bring those poor children back from the dead. That’s not the point of justice. The point of it is to fulfill what the people think qualifies as moral righteousness. It’s what the word actually means if you look it up in a dictionary, and for the majority of people, they believe the death penalty in cases like this is right and I for one can’t fault them.
The point of wanting her dead isn’t to bring the babies back. It’s to get rid of her, permanently, as they rightfully should. We know prison isn’t enough because others have cited the case of another baby murderer who is now up for parole and may be released, completely defeating the point of life sentences in jail.
murder is wrong (unless I think you deserve it)
And that’s how many philosophical schools of thought work, and they are quite honestly more valid than yours. Deontology is a terrible moral outlook and cases like this is why. We can’t have a moral and just society if we only judge morality by action and not by the circumstances of that action, who is affected, who commits it and why, etc.
What you’re asking for is actually unempathetic, cruel, and quite honestly really dangerous for the community.
If you need to have someone explain to you why allowing a baby killer to go on parole – and allowed back into society – is bad, then the problem is not me, the problem is you. You have to put in the effort and think for yourself… though clearly you’re not very good at it.
A large number of people would disagree with you and they would be right to do so. Your opinion does not mean fact.
What a hilariously self-absorbed comment. I never claimed my opinion was fact, but you tried to shame me for it anyway, while one sentence earlier acting like disagreeing with me is objectively correct.
Then you move on to presenting “eligible for parole” as “about to be released”, then stating your opinion about what a life sentence means as fact.
And as the cherry atop a dogshit comment, you throw a fistful of character flaws at me, none of which you’ve even attempted to justify, let alone succeeded in justifying.
Then you move on to presenting “eligible for parole” as “about to be released”, then stating your opinion about what a life sentence means as fact.
Baby murderers should never be eligible for parole under any circumstances and the fact that she is is the problem. It proves that imprisonment isn’t a guarantee she’ll be permanently separated from society, taking away any credibility toward the claim that it’s a satisfactory means to protect the community.
You just don’t want to see a baby murderer be punished. That’s what the real issue is. And you’re vile and morally repugnant for holding that view.
And as the cherry atop a dogshit comment, you throw a fistful of character flaws at me, none of which you’ve even attempted to justify, let alone succeeded in justifying.
Your viewpoint speaks for itself. You want me to hold you in high esteem? Stop trying to manipulate other people into thinking a baby murderer shouldn’t be held accountable for her actions or punished.
Baby murderers should never be eligible for parole under any circumstances and the fact that she is is the problem
Your opinion isn’t fact and it definitely isn’t law. But by all means, keep demeaning yourself by making it clear you don’t know the difference between “life sentence” and “life imprisonment”, even after someone links it to you.
You just don’t want to see a baby murderer be punished. That’s what the real issue is.
Nope, that’s the issue you just made up because apparently you’ve decided to make amphetamines and BPD your entire personality.
And you’re vile and morally repugnant for holding that view.
Having imaginary enemies isn’t any less childish than having imaginary friends. Nobody is going to believe the fictional character you’re openly building inside your head is actually me.
You want me to hold you in high esteem?
I couldn’t care less and I’ve got no idea what gave you that impression. I’m just going to assume it’s something you want me to feel, like all the other thoughts and opinions you’re projecting onto me in a way that’s clearly unbalanced.
Stop trying to manipulate other people into thinking a baby murderer shouldn’t be held accountable for her actions or punished.
It really upset you to have your little murder fantasy criticised didn’t it?
i am pretty vindictive, and i think sending a 33 year old to prison for the rest of her natural life seems like a much worse punishment than a quick death.
Strangely enough there is another baby murdering nurse in UK prison called Beverley Allitt who in 1993 killed children the same way. She’s been inside for 30 years and is actually eligible for parole since she hasn’t received a whole life order (i.e. to die in prison). Doesn’t mean she’ll get parole but expect an outcry if she ever does.
Add comment