The Lucy Letby Controversy – an Objectivist Lawyer’s View.

By Matthew Humphreys

Intro

The English legal case of Lucy Letby, a neo-natal nurse who stands convicted of multiple murders and attempted murders of babies at the hospital where she worked, garnered considerable controversy in recent months, both in the UK and to an extent the US.

The media taking substantial interest in the trial of an alleged serial killer is entirely understandable and to be expected. What is perhaps unusual for a case of this nature is the extent to which the media has focused on questioning the fairness of the trial and/or the correctness of the jury verdict.

In the UK, as in the US, a defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent, it being for the prosecution to prove their guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” – an epistemological standard which I expect is readily understood by an Objectivist audience.

The jury system is predicated on the notion that a group of rational individuals, properly guided on matters of law by a competent judge, is capable of reaching a determination based on the evidence before it.

It is often the case, particularly in more complex cases, that the admissibility or otherwise of various pieces of evidence forms the subject of legal argument held in the absence of the jury.