Quote:
Originally Posted by donna52522
Death row is solitary confinement. Not easy for them to obtain something that can be made into a weapon, and they are probably dealt with with at least 2 guards whenever they need to be dealt with in person.
|
Is there any reason why life without parole shouldn't be in solitary confinement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
And yet people do get their sentences commuted, and some do escape.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/lwop.htm
So "Life without parole" really means "unless someone decides to let him go", or "until he escapes".
|
The former can be changed, the latter isn't relevant to the claim that was made.
Quote:
|
Not really. What we need is a better way to make sure we have the right person.
|
Good luck on that.
Quote:
The statement was that executing the murderer is the only way to guarantee that he doesn't kill again.
|
Read the statement.
Quote:
|
Ted Bundy did escape the authorities more than once and while he was free he did kill again, so imprisoning him some more did allow him to keep killing.
|
Irrelevant.
BTW do you remember the last time you tried using Bundy in a death penalty topic?
Do you remember why it didn't work for the argument you were trying to put forward then?
Same applies again, it doesn't work for what you are trying to argue.
Quote:
|
So in Ted Bundy's case, yes it is
|
Those crimes do not fit the bill.
So ....no it isn't.
Its very simple Sailor, for you to make a case that execution is the only cast iron way to prevent re offending after completion of sentence is for you to find someone who committed a crime after they had been imprisoned until they died.
Anything else doesn't address the fault in the initial claim.
As for escape and committing crimes in prison, that was already dealt with....
Plenty of time for that while waiting years on death row.
Though of course neither would be recidivist crimes would they.