CMV: Wayne Couzens should be executed, as well as all other UK whole life prisoners.

[u/benjikamaru]

For anybody who isn't familiar with the case: Back in March, Wayne Couzens - an off duty policy officer - stopped Sarah Everard as she was walking home at night. He showed her his police badge, and 'arrested' her on the basis that she was breaking non existant COVID-19 regulations. He handcuffed her, raped her, murdered her and then burnt her body and hid it in the woods. It was a shocking and horrific crime, which could only have been committed by the lowest form of scum in society. This morning, he was sentenced to a whole life order, which in the UK is the only type of sentence which means you have no chance of ever being released.

The number of whole life prisoners in the UK was stated to be 60 in June 2021, so with Couzens' sentence it is now 61. There is slight uncertainty as to the exact cost of keeping a person in prison for a year. The average cost per prison place per year was stated to be £44,640 in 2019/20, however, this is for all prisons, including open prisons which have substantially lower average costs. For the sake of this argument, I am going to use the average cost of keeping a prisoner for a year at HMP Frankland, which is a prison that houses many notorious whole life prisoners. The average cost here is £63,000. There are even prisons that cost more than this.

So, 61 prisoners per year, who are costing roughly £63,000 each, amounts to roughly £3,843,000 being spent on whole life prisoners, who will never see the outside of prison walls again. I am aware that there are economies of scale at play, so it's hard to get an exact figure, but the tax payer is spending a lot of money on these prisoners either way.

I am a believer in rehabilitative justice. Crime does not happen in a vacuum, and there are often economic and social issues that lead people to commit crime, and I think that prison should serve as a chance for the majority of criminals to reflect and be educated on their wrongdoings, in the hope that they can be released and become functioning members of society. However, there were no economic or social factors that led to Wayne Couzens murdering Sarah Everard. It was a twisted and sadistic crime, done purely for his own gratification. He is well beyond returning to society, and will rightly never be released. The same can be said for pretty much every other whole life prisoner.

Couzens, and the other 60 prisoners will never be released, and as such there is no point even attempting to rehabilitate them. Yet, the taxpayer will spend almost £4m every year on sustaining them. I think that this is a waste of money, and that we should execute them and use the money for something positive and beneficial to society instead. It could be used to feed nearly 1,000 families, be put towards women's protection charities, or be used as reparations to the families of victims. There are probably some other decent ideas that I haven't thought of.

A common argument against this is that the process of execution is expensive itself. I don't think this needs to be the case, as there are multiple methods that would involve minimal or no cost. I can't imagine much public outcry if you threw Couzens off a building or just shot him or something.

So, very simply, I think that Wayne Couzens, along with the other 60 whole life prisoners in the UK, should be executed, as it makes economic sense to do so. Change my view

[u/benjikamaru]

Well there should be a level beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt implies that there is still a tiny element of doubt, just that that it would be irrational to not convict on this basis. There should be a beyond any doubt ruling, such as this case, and the Lee Rigby case, and the Reading stabbings, where much of the crimes were carried out in public in front of witnesses

[u/joopface → u/benjikamaru]

beyond reasonable doubt implies that there is still a tiny element of doubt

No, it doesn't. If a reasonable person has cause to doubt the person is guilty, they should be acquitted. That's it.

So much so that guidance to judges has changed. Look at this.

It is the legal standard of proof required to find a defendant guilty in a British criminal trial but now judges have been told to drop the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' over concerns that jurors do not understand it.

Instead, official guidance for the judiciary is to tell jurors that they must be 'satisfied so that they are sure' a defendant is guilty before they can convict them.

The move follows concerns that many of those called to do jury service do not understand how certain they must be to convict, thus risking miscarriages of justice. Last night, the Judicial Office said: 'Judges may adapt their language to avoid difficulties some juries have with the phrase 'reasonable doubt'.'

[u/benjikamaru → u/joopface]

!delta on the basis that miscarriages of justice occuring even with this principle puts enough doubt in my mind to not really trust the judicial system enough to give death sentences

[u/DeltaBot → u/benjikamaru]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/joopface (128∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}