PC Wayne Couzens pleads guilty to kidnap and rape of Sarah Everard



Kent_Mackem said:
But that's the point though, he does deserve to be breathing, no matter what he has done. The right to life is the most fundamental human right. And to answer the expected self-righteous angry replies, criminals do not lose their fundamental human rights after committing even the most horrendous crimes (other than their right to freedom).

The death penalty is unsafe because nobody can guarantee a conviction as absolutely certain. Lots of people have been locked up for a long time, who would have been executed by the state if there had been a death penalty available, and then found to be actually innocent later on.

I am no less sickened by what he did and I agree with the posters who wished for a stronger sentence. Giving the state the right to start killing people is not a good thing at all. A quick look at the list of countries that do have the death penalty and those that don't should confirm that.
Click to expand...
He does not. Unless you can behave within the constraints of law or a normal functioning society then no.
 
Kent_Mackem said:
But that's the point though, he does deserve to be breathing, no matter what he has done. The right to life is the most fundamental human right. And to answer the expected self-righteous angry replies, criminals do not lose their fundamental human rights after committing even the most horrendous crimes (other than their right to freedom).

The death penalty is unsafe because nobody can guarantee a conviction as absolutely certain. Lots of people have been locked up for a long time, who would have been executed by the state if there had been a death penalty available, and then found to be actually innocent later on.

I am no less sickened by what he did and I agree with the posters who wished for a stronger sentence. Giving the state the right to start killing people is not a good thing at all. A quick look at the list of countries that do have the death penalty and those that don't should confirm that.
Click to expand...

It’s pretty clear what he’s done though so on that basis I’d say execute him
 
stapler said:
It was a pure point of law that all the advocates (even the appeal advocates) and the judge at trial had got wrong.

Because he was being sentenced for the first murder (the second murder having been dealt with 5 years earlier) it didn't fall into the "whole- life" category that everybody thought: "a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder". It seems fairly obvious to me that the Court of Appeal is right about the interpretation.

It is up to Parliament now to change the law if they want a "2 strikes and you're in, forever" policy.
Click to expand...
I see thought it seemed odd thanks for the info. I mean for all out premeditated murder seems a no brainer, what do we do release people to rack up a third?
 
VINCENT VEGA said:
I see thought it seemed odd thanks for the info. I mean for all out premeditated murder seems a no brainer, what do we do release people to rack up a third?
Click to expand...
It seems an unfortunate quirk of the legislation.

Our masters don't seem to have considered the possibility that a person might commit one murder, get away with it at first, then commit another murder, get banged up for that, then get tried and convinced for the first.

Or if they did consider that possibility, they didn't intend for it to have a whole-life starting point. (Probably not, because if he had been done for both at the same trial, whole-life would have been the starting point. )

Parliament will have to sort it out though. Judges are stuck with the legislation.
 

Back
Top