Wayne Couzens experience in prison?

[faithfulbird20]

Obviously I don't care how he gets treated but do you think other prisoners are going to give him a tough time especially since he's ex police and especially since what he did?

@StrychnineInTheSandwiches

The death penalty is far from being a cheap option.

even when you get the right person.

He will be in a cat A prison with other men many of whom have also raped and killed women. As Others have pointed out, he is vulnerable because he is a copper not because he murdered a woman.

I believe that if WC had not been a serving copper who abused his position to commit his offence, he would not have been given an end of life sentence. There are men walking amongst us now who have been released from prison having committed equally heinous crimes including the rape and murder of children; do all the frothers on here not realise that?

I personally hope he can be treated, rehabilitated and lead some kind of useful life, however limited. Otherwise, yes, they might as well bring back the death penalty. I don't wish him harm however because I don't wish any person harm.

@UrbanRambler

I think that when a person commits such heinous crimes, which are premeditated and involve brutal violence and murder, they forfeit any entitlement to human rights. It's a pity we don't have the death penalty for crimes like this, because a) they don't deserve to live and b) it costs a fortune to keep such people in prison for years, and the money could be better spent on other things.

Years ago, some innocent people were hanged/executed due to confessions given under duress and/or mistakes with investigations and/or false evidence, so I understand why people say they don't want the death penalty returned, because innocent people could end up being executed. However, with modern detection methods such as DNA testing and CCTV everywhere, it's possible to get evidence so that nobody is left in doubt that the conviction is sound. So, if the death penalty were to be applied in cases like this one, the historical concerns about sentencing innocent people to death are no longer relevant.

The average time spent on death row in the US is something like 18 years. It's not sentence, then straight to execution. An enormous amount of money is spent on multiple appeals in the wake of a death sentence, so it is not necessarily cheaper to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.

Aside from the cost issue, the US still has the death penalty, and in the 21st century, as one of the most developed and technologically advanced countries in the world, still gets it wrong and executes the wrong person.

There is no place in any civilised society for state sanctioned killing. Its purpose is purely retribution and nothing else, and it is proven not to be a deterrent.

Additionally to my post below - the US executes in far greater quantity people from lower socio-economic backgrounds than higher, and disproportionately more black people than white. It is not a punishment that treats people equally. Those with money and access to top lawyers, rather than public defenders, are more likely to avoid execution than poorer people.

To be honest, I'm not that bothered how he's treated in prison, the main thing for me is that he's never going to be free to do what he did again, so women everywhere are safer from his potential future crimes.
I do wonder if because of the indecent exposure allegations, he thought his days of being a copper, with the advantages that gave him, may be numbered and therefore he used those advantages while he still had them. Although that said I also think that he was arrogant enough to believe he could get caught and just continue to be protected against what should have been the concequences for those crimes.

Treating him badly in prison for the rest of his life may give some satisfaction to some of you

But allowing that to happen isn't on.

How does this affect other people?

So his family....parents for example?
His own children
The prison officers who have to deal with him

@00100001

I am not defending this man's actions.

I am defending human rights...

I never suggested he should eat shit. Nor have I suggested I would want others to face the consequences I think he should face. I am talking about him.

I have no idea why you are upset about what happens to him. He is evil personified- extremely violent, woman-hating, murderer, torturer, sadist, liar. He has admitted to it all and deserves the very worst consequences. I can not think why you would have a shred of empathy for him.

I'm not sure anyone is defending him. They are defending the fundamental rights of ALL humans in a civilised society. Once you start making exceptions to who is entitled to those rights, it's a slippery slope. It's possible to detest an individual for the horrifying things he has done, and simultaneously not want to degrade the structure of how we treat all human beings on a state level.

Sorry - I should have more specifically said I don't think anyone has empathy for him

If people say "He deserves to be fed shit because of what he did" and that is somehow 'justified'... they'ree lowering themselves to his level. Wayne Couzens was probably thinking that Sarah deserved to be raped and murdered for reasons that made sense to him.

How are you any different to him, if you're treating him inhumanely just as he treated Sarah inhumanely?

Just astounded that you think someone not caring that there’s shit in WC food makes that person the same as WC who raped, murdered and burnt Sarah. They’re not any different? They are the same as him? They are as bad as him?

I can understand people being extremely angry at what this man has done. I can also understand that as a civilised society, we must give people like WC human rights. But to say these two things compare is very, very sick. I despair if someone doesn’t see that.

Also, although we have to have human rights for all, regardless of how awful, I can’t really understand the mentality of someone desperate to defend them. We make the laws, they have rights, we employ people to ensure those are given. They are in place The ‘normal’ people on the street, who claim to be horrified by what he had done, but keep going on about the importance of human rights, which he already has, well, I find that weird. My head has no space for that, someone else has dealt with it by making human rights and laws.

As a normal citizen, my concerns are for women’s safety. My conversations with my daughter are about keeping her safe. My thoughts are about Sarah and my tears and concerns are for Sarah’s family and friends. (and other women and their families who have been harmed and/or killed by men like this).

I know everyone is different, but how a normal person, who isn’t a humans rights lawyer or doesn’t make laws or work in the prison service etc and have to defend these monsters, has any thoughts for WC is beyond me. To spend time defending his human rights and make posts after post doing it, when it’s already being done by others, and you claim to be horrified, there’s something not right.

Ok, fine you're all right

.human rights should be removed wherever we feel the crime is bad enough...

Let's condone, fuckino, let's petition for government sanctioned torture, rape, starvation, physical and mental abuse.

Great forward thinking on this thread 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

We respect human rights because we are human, and we have standards.

Human rights can be suspended - for example some rights are removed after due process of law, so that those found guilty can be incarcerated.

But we don't have legal provision to kill people, torture them or feed them shit. Or to run prisons that are so unsafe that being incarcerated is tantamount to a death sentence, or that a sentence includes frequent physical assaults

@snowballer You make some good points, perhaps the death penalty is not the cheap or practical solution it appears to be, on the surface.

I think some people who would like the death penalty for such crimes are seeking retribution, and there are feelings that such monsters don't deserve to live, after what they've done. These feelings are valid and understandable to me, but I can also see the argument that it is morally better to just incarcerate someone rather than execute them. At least this monster will never have the chance to hurt another woman again.

@snowballer

I'm not sure anyone is defending him. They are defending the fundamental rights of ALL humans in a civilised society. Once you start making exceptions to who is entitled to those rights, it's a slippery slope. It's possible to detest an individual for the horrifying things he has done, and simultaneously not want to degrade the structure of how we treat all human beings on a state level.

This.

FFS!! All the happy, clappy, pearl clutchers on here!!
He has no human fucking rights!! He lost those the day he decided to murder poor Sarah.
He's a disgusting, despicable excuse for a human being.
I hope he lives the rest of his life in fear & pain.

@snowballer

I'm not sure anyone is defending him. They are defending the fundamental rights of ALL humans in a civilised society. Once you start making exceptions to who is entitled to those rights, it's a slippery slope. It's possible to detest an individual for the horrifying things he has done, and simultaneously not want to degrade the structure of how we treat all human beings on a state level.

Thank you !

@Knowivedonewrong

FFS!! All the happy, clappy, pearl clutchers on here!! He has no human fucking rights!! He lost those the day he decided to murder poor Sarah. He's a disgusting, despicable excuse for a human being. I hope he lives the rest of his life in fear & pain.

No he didn't.

That's not how it works.

Yes he's a despicable human being that has done terrible things... But it doesn't mean he can lose his human rights.

@snowballer

I'm not sure anyone is defending him. They are defending the fundamental rights of ALL humans in a civilised society. Once you start making exceptions to who is entitled to those rights, it's a slippery slope. It's possible to detest an individual for the horrifying things he has done, and simultaneously not want to degrade the structure of how we treat all human beings on a state level.

Absolutely

But we do limit human rights @snowballer and @00100001 In fact WC has already had some of his human rights limited by the fact he is not walking the streets right now.

This simplistic “human rights are universal for all” is factually incorrect and facile. You are not arguing for universal immutable human rights equally - unless you think that he should be a free man??

Now you may argue that, in your opinion, the current framework/balance that we have in place to inform when/ how our human rights are restricted is correct but that is a social and moral call - it differs depending on country, year, sociopolitical backdrop.

Your “human rights for all” cries just sound like soundbites and like you’re trying to flex your lefty liberal credentials.

Your “human rights for all” cries just sound like soundbites and like you’re trying to flex your lefty liberal credentials.

😂

And "lefty liberal credentials" isn't at all a soundbite is it!

If wanting to ensure basic human rights at a state level is lefty liberal, I'm cool with that thanks.

Interesting to see that you haven’t actually addressed any of the pertinent points. I’m sure you’re too busy enjoying the feeling that you’re a virtuous self-appointed human rights arbiter.

@Snookie00

But we do limit human rights *@snowballer and @00100001* In fact WC has already had some of his human rights limited by the fact he is not walking the streets right now.

This simplistic “human rights are universal for all” is factually incorrect and facile. You are not arguing for universal immutable human rights equally - unless you think that he should be a free man??

Now you may argue that, in your opinion, the current framework/balance that we have in place to inform when/ how our human rights are restricted is correct but that is a social and moral call - it differs depending on country, year, sociopolitical backdrop.

Your “human rights for all” cries just sound like soundbites and like you’re trying to flex your lefty liberal credentials.

There's limiting freedom of movement for others safety, and then there's torture/rape/starvation/feeding shit because they committed a crime.

Undoubtedly, Couzens received a while life’s tarif simply because he was a police officer. Fundamentally, that’s the reason why.
There are hundreds of killers, including child killers who have been released from prison, probably more than people realise.
Look at Colin Pitchfork recently, he killed two children and left their bodies in such a state.
Yet he was released from prison and is a free man. Why couldn’t he have got a life sentence? Why couldn’t his original sentence have been overturned ?
I don’t argue that Couzens shouldn’t spend the rest of his life behind bars , he certainly should, but there are men out there who have done equally heinous crimes who are free to walk the streets.

@Snookie00

Interesting to see that you haven’t actually addressed any of the pertinent points. I’m sure you’re too busy enjoying the feeling that you’re a virtuous self-appointed human rights arbiter.

It's interesting how nobody advocating the removal of rights has answered if their child or anyone was wrongfully convicted of murder, and then was beaten, raped, tortured etc all in the name of justice. And it was all star sanctioned.

Would it sit as comfortably then?

All this BS about how we'd only do it to those we know we're 100% guilty is just that BS, because all of the people in prison at some point we're judged to be guilty of the crime they were accused of... including those wrongfully imprisoned.

You either say human beings must not be tortured. Or they can be. I don't care how "morally justified" it is to torture someone. It's either OK, or it isn't.

And I say it isn't. It's an abomination to suggest otherwise.

And, also the other question not answered is "where does it end?". When is it OK to beat a prisoner at will without repercussion, and when is it it Ok? Where's that line?